We've already discussed this before but we never had any thorough conclusion on which specific phenotype that Keita is referring too, since having a phenotype thats intermediate between tropical Africans and North Europeans could be anything. I have some guesses:
Thats seems close to intermediate between Northern Europeans and tropical Africans or what does anyone else have to input or say?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This topic was discussed all too many times before, more recently here.
One thing is for sure, Keita's coastal North African type does NOT entail MODERN coastal Egyptians who are of obvious foreign ancestry.
Though no doubt DaHoslips thinks it does! LOL Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
As I've said every time this topic comes up, Keita's "Coastal North African" pattern is a reference to the inclination of these series to lie in between tropical African and northern European series by means of centroid scores.
Why do they occupy such positions on plots of centroid scores? It could be because there is a mix of "tropical African" and "northern European" patterns in the samples under study, and/or it could be that said samples actually contain specimens that feature "intermediate" cranial traits obtained from the genetic exchange of two or more divergent inbreeding populations, or yet--not to be dismissed--environmental happenstance.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As I've said every time this topic comes up, Keita's "Coastal North African" pattern is a reference to the inclination of these series to lie in between tropical African and northern European series by means of centroid scores.
Why do they occupy such positions on plots of centroid scores? It could be because there is a mix of "tropical African" and "northern European" patterns in the samples under study, and/or it could be that said samples actually contain specimens that feature "intermediate" cranial traits obtained from the genetic exchange of two or more divergent inbreeding populations, or yet--not to be dismissed--environmental happenstance.
Why Northern European??? Do many think that everyone who isn't tropical African or Northern European must be mixed?? Lol. People changed as they migrated. Mediterranean people came first. Then Northern Europeans as folks traveled further North. Northen Europeans are the european EXTREME.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As I've said every time this topic comes up, Keita's "Coastal North African" pattern is a reference to the inclination of these series to lie in between tropical African and northern European series by means of centroid scores.
Why do they occupy such positions on plots of centroid scores? It could be because there is a mix of "tropical African" and "northern European" patterns in the samples under study, and/or it could be that said samples actually contain specimens that feature "intermediate" cranial traits obtained from the genetic exchange of two or more divergent inbreeding populations, or yet--not to be dismissed--environmental happenstance.
His says this pattern is a metric phenotype and as we know a pattern that falls in between Northern European and tropical African could be anything although Keita doesn't specify which one this phenotype lies closest too.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This topic was discussed all too many times before, more recently here.
One thing is for sure, Keita's coastal North African type does NOT entail MODERN coastal Egyptians who are of obvious foreign ancestry.
Though no doubt DaHoslips thinks it does! LOL
It's pretty sure they looked more like they still look than like sub-saharans look.
^^^Obviously all the same race.
Does not equal:
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
Ignore the troll people.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This topic was discussed all too many times before, more recently here.
One thing is for sure, Keita's coastal North African type does NOT entail MODERN coastal Egyptians who are of obvious foreign ancestry.
Though no doubt DaHoslips thinks it does! LOL
It's pretty sure they looked more like they still look than like sub-saharans look.
^^^Obviously all the same race.
Does not equal:
I agree. The depictions the Egyptians made are quite clear. Most looked Middle Eastern but some would have been considered Black as well.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Why Northern European??? Do many think that everyone who isn't tropical African or Northern European must be mixed?? Lol.
You are reading something into my post that wasn't there to begin with.
quote: People changed as they migrated. Mediterranean people came first. Then Northern Europeans as folks traveled further North. Northen Europeans are the european EXTREME.
You said it yourself, the northern Europeans who represent the "European Extreme". It is because of this, they are invoked. The pattern breaks between coastal north Africans and southern Europeans right across the sea is going to be less clear cut, because they'd exchanged genes with north Africans much more so than the northern Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
His says this pattern is a metric phenotype and as we know a pattern that falls in between Northern European and tropical African could be anything although Keita doesn't specify which one this phenotype lies closest too.
You are saying that Keita isn't treating it as a "pattern" but "a metric phenotype". Then you should know what "metric phenotype" he is referring to when he says "coastal north African", shouldn't you?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Keita's words on the subject are unambiguous, to my mind.
Why Northern European??? Do many think that everyone who isn't tropical African or Northern European must be mixed?? Lol.
You are reading something into my post that wasn't there to begin with.
quote: People changed as they migrated. Mediterranean people came first. Then Northern Europeans as folks traveled further North. Northen Europeans are the european EXTREME.
You said it yourself, the northern Europeans who represent the "European Extreme". It is because of this, they are invoked. The pattern breaks between coastal north Africans and southern Europeans right across the sea is going to be less clear cut, because they'd exchanged genes with north Africans much more so than the northern Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
His says this pattern is a metric phenotype and as we know a pattern that falls in between Northern European and tropical African could be anything although Keita doesn't specify which one this phenotype lies closest too.
You are saying that Keita isn't treating it as a "pattern" but "a metric phenotype". Then you should know what "metric phenotype" he is referring to when he says "coastal north African", shouldn't you?
No thats not what I said or was trying to say, but nonetheless it is still hard to pin down exactly what is a coastal African phenotype with a cranio-emtric pattern intermediate between tropical Africans and Northern Europeans. Note: tropical Africans could be either the broad trend or elongated type.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
You said it yourself, the northern Europeans who represent the "European Extreme". It is because of this, they are invoked. The pattern breaks between coastal north Africans and southern Europeans right across the sea is going to be less clear cut, because they'd exchanged genes with north Africans much more so than the northern Europeans.
Ok. So what exactly is your belief about North Africans I haven't had time to read everybody posts. I know some believe that in Historic times they were tropical Blacks up the fall of the Moors. Myself I believe they have been "intermediate" since prehistoric times as migrations to and from the Europe and the Middle East were not infrequent.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Charles, But that is what I'm trying to convey here; he is not treating the "coastal north African" as a certain "phenotype". The pattern is a reference to the inclination of the northern African series to assume "intermediate" positions in a plot of centroid scores. These centroids do not divulge the specimen phenotypes of the series involved, just their average position.
Putting that aside, Keita does give an indication of what the Maghrebi pattern entails, which is part of his "coastal North African" pattern. He implies that there are both "tropical African" and "northern European" cranial patterns present in them, along with what I interpreted as "hybrid" elements. The Egyptians series, especially the Sedment series, were considered different from the Maghrebi series.
For interested parties, I'd discuss this on my blog: Link.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
there are no physical remains, Keita and anybody else can only hypothesize broadly
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Ok. So what exactly is your belief about North Africans I haven't had time to read everybody posts. I know some believe that in Historic times they were tropical Blacks up the fall of the Moors. Myself I believe they have been "intermediate" since prehistoric times as migrations to and from the Europe and the Middle East were not infrequent.
The Egyptian patterns have to generally be treated differently from the Maghrebi patterns. Human paleontology in the Maghreb tells us that humans had been living there way longer than even before Europe or the "Near East" were populated by modern humans. There is such a thing as the Maghrebi pattern, which is distinct from the European one--even the southern European ones, if Brace et al. (2005) are to be taken at their word. From this paleontological record, I get the sense that there was an initial Neolithic local "Maghrebi" pattern that subsequently got influenced by populations neighboring them, both to their south and north. There may have been some influence from the "Near East" and Iberia [assuming that they were seafarers then] during the Neolithic, but I'm of the mindset that much of the European ancestry [mostly maternal] is of a more recent extraction than prehistoric.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: [QB] Keita's Coastal North African phenotype revisited:
We've already discussed this before but we never had any thorough conclusion on which specific phenotype that Keita is referring too, since having a phenotype thats intermediate between tropical Africans and North Europeans could be anything.
How far back in time would such an intermediate phenotype date to and does ancient Egypt which has coastal borders include these phenotype?
Explorer, please wait for Charlie's answer first.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Everyone should keep in mind that the "tropical African" samples Keita used in his studies are predominantly of the Broad "True Negro" phenotype. For all we know, a study using narrower-featered Northeast Africans like Ethiopians or Somalis could could have had the northern Egyptians cluster with them so that they don't appear so "intermediate" between Africans and Europeans.
Anyone notice the widespread misconception that at some point along the Nile River people magically changed from black to Mediterranean? For most people that magic point is the First Cataract while for others (the ones who are willing to concede that Upper Egyptians were black) it's the entryway of the Delta. Even if you accept the existence of Mediterranean-looking Egyptians, you'd expect a much less abrupt gradient as you traveled downriver, with people gradually getting lighter as you approach the Delta.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The Explorer
There may have been some influence from the "Near East" and Iberia [assuming that they were seafarers then] during the Neolithic, but I'm of the mindset that much of the European ancestry [mostly maternal] is of a more recent extraction than prehistoric.
The closet distance between Spain and Morcco is about 7 miles! In prehistoric times. The Mediterranean basin was much more shallow than it is Today.
Abstract The sequencing of entire human mitochondrial DNAs belonging to haplogroup U reveals that this clade arose shortly after the "out of Africa" exit and rapidly radiated into numerous regionally distinct subclades. Intriguingly, the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch, aged merely approximately 9,000 years. This unexpected finding not only confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of southwestern Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum but also reveals a direct maternal link between those European hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15791543 Iberomaurusian (or Iberomarusian) was a late Paleolithic culture present in the Iberian Peninsula and Mahgreb, North Africa from 20.000 to 7.500 BC (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994).They were considered Cro-Magnon and Caucasoid types. Old archaelogical evidences of connections between the Levante and Mahgreb-Iberian spaces can be found in many others items, like blades and snails ! So the movement was from east to west, from North Africa to Iberia.."
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
truthcentric
Anyone notice the widespread misconception that at some point along the Nile River people magically changed from black to Mediterranean? For most people that magic point is the First Cataract while for others (the ones who are willing to concede that Upper Egyptians were black) it's the entryway of the Delta. Even if you accept the existence of Mediterranean-looking Egyptians, you'd expect a much less abrupt gradient as you traveled downriver, with people gradually getting lighter as you approach the Delta.
No abrupt magic point. But as you say people would gradually become lighter as you appproached North. On a similar note, what I find interesting is that some seem to expect the Egyptian border with Palestine to be some kind of magical demarcation as well. For while they will concede that Palestinians were likely Middle Eastern in appearance, once you crossed the border into Egypt everybody is suddenly Black. Why you ask? Because it's AFRICA! I'm glad to find critical thinkers like your self that understand a bit about geography and how demograpics change gradually over distance.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
How shallow was the Mediterranean basin during the Neolithic? Let's get numbers.
As for these excerpts, I've heard these arguments many times before. Much of Maghrebi "Eurasian" mtDNA are not that vastly different from the Iberian counterparts, reinforcing the point that they generally recent. From my observation, much of the "Eurasian" component in contemporary Maghrebi groups are attributable to both the slave trade of Europe, during the North African control in the Iberian peninsula, and the reported expulsions that accompanied the decline of north African rule in the peninsula.
With regards to the so-called Iberomaurusians, up to date understanding is that it is of local origin, which later spread eastward. NONE of the so-called "Iberomaurusian" cranial specimens were indistinguishable from the so-called Cro-Magnon series of Europe; hence, the name "Mechtoid". Even the so-called "Iberomaurusian" specimens differed from one another from territory to territory in the Maghreb.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Everyone should keep in mind that the "tropical African" samples Keita used in his studies are predominantly of the Broad "True Negro" phenotype. For all we know, a study using narrower-featered Northeast Africans like Ethiopians or Somalis could could have had the northern Egyptians cluster with them so that they don't appear so "intermediate" between Africans and Europeans.
Keita has generally maintained that he saw gradients in the Egyptian series. According to him the Upper Egyptian specimens fell mostly into "broad" and "elongated" types, both of which he places under the "tropical African" pattern. He based his use of "elongated" on that of Hiernaux, whom in turn put populations in the African Horn in that category. So not all Egyptian series were placed into the "coastal North African" pattern; rather, the northern Egyptian series of the Sedment and the E series were placed into the "coastal north African" pattern. Mapping however shows that the Sedment series is also distinct from the "E" series.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: On a similar note, what I find interesting is that some seem to expect the Egyptian border with Palestine to be some kind of magical demarcation as well. For while they will concede that Palestinians were likely Middle Eastern in appearance, once you crossed the border into Egypt everybody is suddenly Black. Why you ask? Because it's AFRICA! I'm glad to find critical thinkers like your self that understand a bit about geography and how demograpics change gradually over distance. [/qb]
A point I was about to make. When you look at the map, and how close the highly populous Nile Delta is to Palestine, this 'African' designation seems very arbitrary. Also people forget that the Sinai Peninsula is an integral part of Egypt and it is not in Africa at all!
The edge of the Delt literally touches Asia! This geography reveals how questionable it is to try to oriente Egypt towards interior Africa rather than Middle East.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
False, as many of your other claims. The Sinai peninsula is very much geologically a part of Africa, and not part of the Arabian plate, as you imagine.
The study of body proportions of predyanstic Delta specimens show sharp distinctions to Palestianian specimens. They aligned more closely with other Egyptian and African specimens. This was reportedly attributable to a "lack of common ancestry for a long period of time". The Sinai peninsula may have been more of a gradient point than mainland Egypt, until relatively recently, i.e. post Hyksos, Greek and Roman eras.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Not only that, but all land west of the extension of the Rift composed of Gulf of Aqaba, the Arabah, Dead Sea, Jordan River, and Kinnereth is on the African plate and not the Arabian plate which is itself a break-away of the African tectonic plate. Only faulty geo-politics before earth science was known makes the Arabian plate and peninsula "Asian."
African plate areas in yellow include part of Cyprus, coastal Levant, and all of Sinai. This is the actual physiology of earth's geography as distinct from political boundaries.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The plate boundary is irrelevant. Much of Palestine is indeed also part of the same African plate, but it is still Asian, and so is Sinai.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
How shallow was the Mediterranean basin during the Neolithic? Let's get numbers.
Don't know but what makes you don't that folks crossed over especially during the last glacial Maximum. From alater period, 4000 B.C. or so there is even some evidence of European megalithic culture in North Africa.
From my observation, much of the "Eurasian" component in contemporary Maghrebi groups are attributable to both the slave trade of Europe, during the North African control in the Iberian peninsula, and the reported expulsions that accompanied the decline of north African rule in the peninsula.
The problem I have with that is that being that the dominant culture and language of the Moors was Arabic. You would think European slaves would be sent to upper classes in urban centers centers and become arabized. However many of the very light skinned Berbers some with light hair and eyes are found in remote Berber enclaves were some sacrcely speak Arabic like in the Rif mountains for example. That's not exactly were one would expect European slaves to end up, is it?
Riffian girl.
Also when we take into consideration the light features, as claimed of the Guanche in the Canary islands, who have lived there apparently before the Roman era, this tends to suggest light skinned folks in North Africa date much further back than recent times. The Guanche btw spoke a language and had a culture that was related to that of the Berbers. Also there is the issue of the Eurasian looking Libyans as depicted by the Egyptians nearly four thousand years ago, among other things.
And many of the expelled Moors founded their own towns in North Africa many of which are still extant to this day. Not to say that some didn't mix with the genereal population. Still, I'm sure geneticists who want get a true historical picture as to the origns of the Berbers would be careful not to look in heavily mixed urban areas etc
With regards to the so-called Iberomaurusians, up to date understanding is that it is of local origin, which later spread eastward.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Iberomaurusian also defines a material culture. Are you saying that there was no shared culture spaning from Iberia into North Africa?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Obvioulsy there is natural geographical division between Egypt and Syria/Palestine, and historically these were different lands with different languages, so some division is to be expected. However is it proven that they were any more different genetically than Frenchmen are from Spaniards? (Similarly differentiated by geography and laguage). There are images of Egyptians and Canaanites that look similar, and there is the evidence from the Bible which records Moses being mistaken for an Egyptian. The Jews seemed to be crossing into Egypt all the time before the supposed captivity, and Joseph's brothers appear also to have mistaken him for an Egyptian. There is also evidence of intermarriage. Joseph had an Egyptian wife, Moses a Kushite one. Solomon had a pharaoh's daughter in his harem and the pharaohs had many Syrian women in theirs (but none with harsh voices)
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Better to do research than just lazily skim Wikipedia. The Sinai peninsula has a clear fault at its boundary with the Arabian plate; it doesn't have that fault with Egyptian territory, to which it is attached. Research; stop simply parroting the first thing that comes your way!
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The plate faultline is not the dividing line, the continental dividing line is taken to be the narrowest land bridge, which is on the Suez side. (The Suez canal also physically severs the Aferican and Asian continents there- the two bits of Egypt in other words.
Don't know but what makes you don't that folks crossed over especially during the last glacial Maximum. From alater period, 4000 B.C. or so there is even some evidence of European megalithic culture in North Africa.
You assumed that I doubt the possibility that people crossed over Mediterranean sea or the Gibraltar strait. I just don't know that they necessarily did, and so, asking for evidence. Seas can be real barriers, if proper navigation tools are not one's disposal.
quote:
The problem I have with that is that being that the dominant culture and language of the Moors was Arabic. You would think European slaves would be sent to upper classes in urban centers centers and become arabized.
European slaves were mostly women, which is reflecting in Maghrebi gene pools. What makes you assume that they had any social power?
quote: However many of the very light skinned Berbers some with light hair and eyes are found in remote Berber enclaves were some sacrcely speak Arabic like in the Rif mountains for example. That's not exactly were one would expect European slaves to end up, is it?
Are the majority of these people not Muslims?
quote:
Also when we take into consideration the light features, as claimed of the Guanche in the Canary islands, who have lived there apparently before the Roman era, this tends to suggest light skinned folks in North Africa date much further back than recent times. The Guanche btw spoke a language and had a culture that was related to that of the Berbers. Also there is the issue of the Eurasian looking Libyans as depicted by the Egyptians nearly four thousand years ago, among other things.
The Guanche have not been spared European gene flow.
quote: I'm not sure what you are getting at. Iberomaurusian also defines a material culture. Are you saying that there was no shared culture spaning from Iberia into North Africa?
The Iberomaurusian refers to lithic-culture in the Maghrebi. The "Ibero" was justified presumably because of supposed similarities with those found across the Mediterranean sea. It is now known that this is a misleading term, since the lithic-culture in question is determined to be one of local origin.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: False, as many of your other claims. The Sinai peninsula is very much geologically a part of Africa, and not part of the Arabian plate, as you imagine.
The study of body proportions of predyanstic Delta specimens show sharp distinctions to Palestianian specimens. They aligned more closely with other Egyptian and African specimens. This was reportedly attributable to a "lack of common ancestry for a long period of time". The Sinai peninsula may have been more of a gradient point than mainland Egypt, until relatively recently, i.e. post Hyksos, Greek and Roman eras.
I cant see what would prevent people from moving back and forth along the coast. And in another post I showed that there was considerable Palestinian influence in the pre dynastic Northern Egypt in the cultural centers of Merinda and Maadi. I seriously doubt there wouldn't have been admixture these people.
Anyway here is an interesting study.
One of the most complete aDNA studies involved analyzing material from the Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt. Th is report includes a detailed description of the procedures undertaken to avoid contamination. All samples were collected immediately following excavation, and the fi eld staff wore latex gloves. Bone preparation and DNA isolation were carried out in a Paleo- DNA laboratory especially designed for ancient DNA work (Graver et al. 2001). The investigators focused on the Kellis 2 cemetery associated with the ancient town of Kellis. This necropolis was in use between 300 and 390 CE and included ~3000 burials. DNA isolation was conducted for 50 skeletal samples from the cemetery. The aim of the study was to characterize the ancient population from the Dakhleh Oasis. To allow for inferences regarding population changes at the oasis, 94 contemporary samples were also analyzed. Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so alled “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999). To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplifi cation of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fi t the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of Hpa I 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis." http://www.anthropology.uw.edu.pl/02/bne-02-02.pdf Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
The plate faultline is not the dividing line
It is to geologists.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I cant see what would prevent people from moving back and forth along the coast. And in another post I showed that there was considerable Palestinian influence in the pre dynastic Northern Egypt in the cultural centers of Merinda and Maadi. I seriously doubt there wouldn't have been admixture these people.
You are choosing to overlook the physical evidence that says there were sharp distinctions between the delta Egyptian specimens and the Palestinian ones. The evidence is what it is; you can be disappointed about it, or be puzzled by it, but beyond that, there is little else one can do about it.
People do exchange goods, and even ideas, without getting into sexual relations. The concept is called "trade" today.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Exactly Explorer grave goods in cemetery L in Ta-Seti aka Nubia carries Jars and other items directly from Syria Palestine without Kemet being a middleman.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
You assumed that I doubt the possibility that people crossed over Mediterranean sea or the Gibraltar strait. I just don't know that they necessarily did, and so, asking for evidence. Seas can be real barriers, if proper navigation tools are not one's disposal.
Yet I'm sure you aknowledge that European seafarers in prehistoric times were able to cross the English Channel..25 miles is about shortest distance from the continent. You might find this interesting..
"In Morocco, not far from the Atlantic coast and away from major tourist attractions, lies a remarkable and enigmatic megalithic site. The Mzora stone ring (also spelled variously as Msoura/Mezorah) is situated roughly 11km from the nearest town of Asilah and about 27km from the ruins of ancient Lixus. It is not easy to reach and a small display in the archaeological museum at Tetouan is the most the majority of visitors see or hear of this very interesting site. Plutarch, in the first century CE, may have referred to Mzora in his Life of Sertorius. He describes the Roman General Quintus Sertorius being told by local inhabitants about a site they knew as the tomb of the giant Antaeus who had been killed by Hercules. There are many other ancient accounts that place the tomb of Antaeus in close proximity to both Lixus and Tangier and it is quite plausible that Mzora is the inspiration behind these stories. The site itself is a Neolithic ellipse of 168 surviving stones of the 175 originally believed to have existed. The tallest of these stones is over 5m in height. The ellipse has a major axis of 59.29 metres and a minor axis of 56.18 metres. At the centre of the ring, and quite probably a much later addition, is a large tumulus, today almost disappeared. The bulk of the damage to it seems to have been done by excavations undertaken in 1935-6 by César Luis de Montalban. The only professional survey of the site was conducted in the 1970s by James Watt Mavor, Junior of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, USA. It is this survey that revealed Mzora to be not only remarkable in its own right but to have implications for the history of megalithic sites in Britain. Mzora, incredibly, appears to have been constructed either by the same culture that erected the megalithic sites in France, Britain and Ireland or by one that was intimately connected with them. The ellipse is constructed using a Pythagorean right angled triangle of the ratio 12, 35, 37. This same technique was used in the construction of British stone ellipses of which 30 good examples survive including the Sands of Forvie and Daviot rings. Furthermore it appears that the same unit of measure, the megalithic yard (or something remarkably close) used in the construction of the British sites surveyed by Professor Alexander Thom, was also used in the construction of Mzora. "
European slaves were mostly women, which is reflecting in Maghrebi gene pools. What makes you assume that they had any social power?
No, I'm saying would you expect their descandants to end up in a remote Berber village speaking Berber???
Are the majority of these people not Muslims?
They are nominally for the most part. But retain some of their traditions.
The Guanche have not been spared European gene flow.
Yet the traits were present when the Guanche were first discovered. There genetic signature is similar to that of the Berbers.
The Iberomaurusian refers to lithic-culture in the Maghrebi. The "Ibero" was justified presumably because of supposed similarities with those found across the Mediterranean sea. It is now known that this is a misleading term, since the lithic-culture in question is determined to be one of local origin.
So the similarites are coincidence?
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
The plate faultline is not the dividing line
It is to geologists.
I believe the main point here is that it presents no significant barrier to human migration.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Precisely why Mashubean Africans went east and engendered the Natufian Levantines and how the earlier sapiens found at Skuhl got to get there before climate changes made it impassable thus trapping them into extinction.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I cant see what would prevent people from moving back and forth along the coast. And in another post I showed that there was considerable Palestinian influence in the pre dynastic Northern Egypt in the cultural centers of Merinda and Maadi. I seriously doubt there wouldn't have been admixture these people.
You are choosing to overlook the physical evidence that says there were sharp distinctions between the delta Egyptian specimens and the Palestinian ones. The evidence is what it is; you can be disappointed about it, or be puzzled by it, but beyond that, there is little else one can do about it.
People do exchange goods, and even ideas, without getting into sexual relations. The concept is called "trade" today.
Yes I do question it. Considering that the Natufian culture whioch took hold in the Levant came out of Northern Egypt along with spreading the E haplogroup as well etc.
But I will have to continie with this later. Gotta go for now.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The Arabian J haplogroup is also quite common among Delta Egyptians and others along the N. African coast.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
duplicate--technical error.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Yet I'm sure you aknowledge that European seafarers in prehistoric times were able to cross the English Channel..25 miles is about shortest distance from the continent. You might find this interesting...
I agree that that your piece is interesting, but not damning.
quote:
No, I'm saying would you expect their descandants to end up in a remote Berber village speaking Berber???
Why not? Because the people in these areas today appear to be "poor"?
quote:
They are nominally for the most part. But retain some of their traditions.
But not Muslims in practice? What religion would they be actually practicing? Anyway, if Islam could have reached these "isolated" folks, why would you rule out the prospect that they too could have been genetically impacted from the same social forces that supposedly brought Arabic to the "urban centers", and the same social events that supposedly brought about slaves in "urban centers", as you claim?
quote: Yet the traits were present when the Guanche were first discovered. There genetic signature is similar to that of the Berbers.
Clarification of traits you are alluding to?
quote:
So the similarites are coincidence?
Very possible, since there were enough differences to make an observer favor a local origin over a diffusion theory. Also Europeans are generally Eurocentric, which is why they like to conceive of diffusion from north to south, when it could just as easily have been the other way around--i.e. from south to north, esp. given the rich local African lithic history and its spread into the Levant.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I believe the main point here is that it presents no significant barrier to human migration.
Nope. The guy was saying that the Sinai peninsula is really a part of Asia. That is false.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Yes I do question it. Considering that the Natufian culture whioch took hold in the Levant came out of Northern Egypt along with spreading the E haplogroup as well etc.
You question the physical evidence, but then what can you do about it?
The Natufian's African ancestors came into the Levant in the Upper Paleolithic. The Delta specimens are Holocene specimens. You are mixing apples and oranges.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Exactly Explorer grave goods in cemetery L in Ta-Seti aka Nubia carries Jars and other items directly from Syria Palestine without Kemet being a middleman.
True enough, but you may be hard-pressed to get the same amount of enthusiasm go into "Nubia" about wanting them to be "hybrids" of Africans and Asians/Europeans.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Here's something that might interest melchior7; quote:
"The Barbary Pirates
The Barbary pirates, also sometimes called Ottoman corsairs, were pirates and privateers that operated from north Africa (the "Barbary coast"). They operated out of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. Their stronghold was along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast (a medieval term for the Maghreb after its Berber inhabitants), although their predation was said to extend throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North Atlantic, purportedly as far north as Iceland. As well as preying on shipping, raids were often made on European coastal towns. The pirates were responsible for capturing large numbers of Christian slaves from Europe, who were sold in slave markets in places such as Algeria and Morocco.
According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 17th century. These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages in Italy, Spain and Portugal, and from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland and North America. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793. Isolated cases of piracy have occurred on the ***Rif coast*** of Morocco even at the beginning of the 20th century, but the pirate communities which lived by plunder and could live by no other resource, vanished with the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.
The most famous corsairs were the Ottoman Barbarossa (meaning Redbeard) brothers, the nickname of Hızır (Hayreddin) and his older brother Oruç who took control of Algiers in the early 16th century and turned it into the center of Mediterranean piracy and privateering for the next three centuries, as well as establishing the Ottoman Empire presence in North Africa which lasted four centuries. Other famous Ottoman privateer-admirals included Turgut Reis (known as Dragut in the West), Kurtoğlu (known as Curtogoli in the West), Kemal Reis, Salih Reis and Koca Murat Reis."
Well, well. What do we have here? Whatever could have happened to all those millions of European slaves? The Rif Coast is not spared from implication in this whole affair. There's more:
"Although piracy had existed in the region throughout the decline of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasions, the Muslim conquest and the Middle Ages, piracy became particularly flagrant in the 14th century when the local Berber dynasties were in decadence. The town of Bougie was then the most notorious pirate base..."
" The rich were allowed to redeem themselves, but the poor were condemned to slavery. Their masters would on occasion allow them to secure freedom by professing Islam."
Slaves were even in some cases allowed to become part of communities:
"The old city of Algiers, with its narrow streets, intense heat and lively trade, was a melting pot where the villagers would join slaves and freemen of many nationalities."
For details, see this site: Link...make what you will, with the site.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101: It's pretty sure they looked more like they still look than like sub-saharans look.
^^^Obviously all the same race.
Does not equal:
The first picture of Ramses son and his son are unusual in that the complexion is orange. I suspect alteration or fading of paint which is obviously the case of the second picture of a dwarf and his wife whose original symbolic yellow is totally gone. The picture below is obviously of a Greco-Roman descendant child, the modern Arab types are obviously not representative of the ancients.
Again cherry picking will not help you.
Also your argument about the Sinai is null and void since I and others have told you many times that the Sinai was never part of Egypt until New Kingdom times when it was fully incorporated along with the Levant.
It also does not change the fact that there your "Sub-Saharan" division of Africans never existed as indigenous i.e. BLACK Africans are found all over the continent long before the Sahara existed. Even the Sinai and Levant was never a limit since the mesolithic Mushabians crossed the Sinai and immigrated to the Levant where they became the Natufians and the same happened with the Harifians who crossed into Arabia to introduce cattle culture!
quote: The Arabian J haplogroup is also quite common among Delta Egyptians and others along the N. African coast.
Yes, and most of the hg J in these areas date to the Islamic period while some date to before that during the Phoenician expansion. I suppose you want to associate European derived hg R1b with indigenous Egyptians as well. LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Here are how most (Arab) Egyptians look like. Their mixed African and other ancestry is obvious...
Here is how rural NON-Arab NON-Afrangi (foreign descended elite) Egyptians look like-- less mixed.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Here's something that might interest melchior7;
quote::
"The Barbary Pirates
The Barbary pirates, also sometimes called Ottoman corsairs, were pirates and privateers that operated from north Africa (the "Barbary coast"). They operated out of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. Their stronghold was along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast (a medieval term for the Maghreb after its Berber inhabitants), although their predation was said to extend throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North Atlantic, purportedly as far north as Iceland. As well as preying on shipping, raids were often made on European coastal towns. The pirates were responsible for capturing large numbers of Christian slaves from Europe, who were sold in slave markets in places such as Algeria and Morocco.
According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 17th century. These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages in Italy, Spain and Portugal, and from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland and North America. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793. Isolated cases of piracy have occurred on the ***Rif coast*** of Morocco even at the beginning of the 20th century, but the pirate communities which lived by plunder and could live by no other resource, vanished with the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.
The most famous corsairs were the Ottoman Barbarossa (meaning Redbeard) brothers, the nickname of Hızır (Hayreddin) and his older brother Oruç who took control of Algiers in the early 16th century and turned it into the center of Mediterranean piracy and privateering for the next three centuries, as well as establishing the Ottoman Empire presence in North Africa which lasted four centuries. Other famous Ottoman privateer-admirals included Turgut Reis (known as Dragut in the West), Kurtoğlu (known as Curtogoli in the West), Kemal Reis, Salih Reis and Koca Murat Reis."
Well, well. What do we have here? Whatever could have happened to all those millions of European slaves? The Rif Coast is not spared from implication in this whole affair. There's more:
"Although piracy had existed in the region throughout the decline of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasions, the Muslim conquest and the Middle Ages, piracy became particularly flagrant in the 14th century when the local Berber dynasties were in decadence. The town of Bougie was then the most notorious pirate base..."
" The rich were allowed to redeem themselves, but the poor were condemned to slavery. Their masters would on occasion allow them to secure freedom by professing Islam."
Slaves were even in some cases allowed to become part of communities:
"The old city of Algiers, with its narrow streets, intense heat and lively trade, was a melting pot where the villagers would join slaves and freemen of many nationalities."
For details, see this site: Link...make what you will, with the site.
So much for Riffians having always been white. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
^Ditto. More Riffians:
Courtesy of: Link Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Heat Check on The Explorer and Djehuti...You guys are on fire.Bahahahahahah
The European slave trade cannot be refuted...Hence the reason why the racists are no place to be found.
There is always talk about how Black Africans darkened North Africa, yet very few talks about how the Euro Slave Trade impacted the North.
The riffians is just gravy.. Good job guys.
Peace
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Posted by The Old Doctore (Member # 18546) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Here's something that might interest melchior7; quote:
"The Barbary Pirates
The Barbary pirates, also sometimes called Ottoman corsairs, were pirates and privateers that operated from north Africa (the "Barbary coast"). They operated out of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. Their stronghold was along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast (a medieval term for the Maghreb after its Berber inhabitants), although their predation was said to extend throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North Atlantic, purportedly as far north as Iceland. As well as preying on shipping, raids were often made on European coastal towns. The pirates were responsible for capturing large numbers of Christian slaves from Europe, who were sold in slave markets in places such as Algeria and Morocco.
According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 17th century. These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages in Italy, Spain and Portugal, and from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland and North America. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793. Isolated cases of piracy have occurred on the ***Rif coast*** of Morocco even at the beginning of the 20th century, but the pirate communities which lived by plunder and could live by no other resource, vanished with the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.
The most famous corsairs were the Ottoman Barbarossa (meaning Redbeard) brothers, the nickname of Hızır (Hayreddin) and his older brother Oruç who took control of Algiers in the early 16th century and turned it into the center of Mediterranean piracy and privateering for the next three centuries, as well as establishing the Ottoman Empire presence in North Africa which lasted four centuries. Other famous Ottoman privateer-admirals included Turgut Reis (known as Dragut in the West), Kurtoğlu (known as Curtogoli in the West), Kemal Reis, Salih Reis and Koca Murat Reis."
Well, well. What do we have here? Whatever could have happened to all those millions of European slaves? The Rif Coast is not spared from implication in this whole affair. There's more:
"Although piracy had existed in the region throughout the decline of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasions, the Muslim conquest and the Middle Ages, piracy became particularly flagrant in the 14th century when the local Berber dynasties were in decadence. The town of Bougie was then the most notorious pirate base..."
" The rich were allowed to redeem themselves, but the poor were condemned to slavery. Their masters would on occasion allow them to secure freedom by professing Islam."
Slaves were even in some cases allowed to become part of communities:
"The old city of Algiers, with its narrow streets, intense heat and lively trade, was a melting pot where the villagers would join slaves and freemen of many nationalities."
For details, see this site: Link...make what you will, with the site.
How large was the Maghrebi population at the time? Modern Libya was only 2 million strong in the 1960's; 6 million today, with 1.5 million being recent Tropical African immigrants.
2011 Estimates
Morocco: 36,200,000 *Western Sahara: 513,000 Algeria: 35,423,000 * Tuareg: 6% Tunisia: 10,432,500 Libya: 6,420,000 *Recent African immigrants: 1.5 million *Toubou: 18% *Tuareg: 10% (600,000) Mauritania: 3,291,000 *Haratin or Black Moors: 1,316,400 *Beidane or Red Moors: 987,000 *Niger-Kordofanian speakers: 987,000 Tuareg in the Western Sudan: Between 4-5 million Egypt: 80,085,862 * Urban Government (Cairo, Alexandria, Port Said, and Suez: 20% of population ^ All in Lower Egypt or Sinai *Lower Egypt: 45% *Upper Egypt: 35%
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Everyone should keep in mind that the "tropical African" samples Keita used in his studies are predominantly of the Broad "True Negro" phenotype. For all we know, a study using narrower-featered Northeast Africans like Ethiopians or Somalis could could have had the northern Egyptians cluster with them so that they don't appear so "intermediate" between Africans and Europeans.
Anyone notice the widespread misconception that at some point along the Nile River people magically changed from black to Mediterranean? For most people that magic point is the First Cataract while for others (the ones who are willing to concede that Upper Egyptians were black) it's the entryway of the Delta. Even if you accept the existence of Mediterranean-looking Egyptians, you'd expect a much less abrupt gradient as you traveled downriver, with people gradually getting lighter as you approach the Delta.
I think this post is spot on, in Keita's study on Northeast African craniofacial variation he found that the Somali samples plotted intermediate between Broad trend Africans and Europeans, I think the coastal type would cluster with the Elongated type before clustering with Europeans and there's even genetic evidence of a movement of East Africans into North Africa.It very well possible that the coastal type is a derivative of the Elongated type.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer
Why not? Because the people in these areas today appear to be "poor"?
Pretty much. Also we are talking about folks in the Rif mountains not the coastal areas. Anyway the reason they fled to the mountains in the first place was the arival of the Arabs, hence why the were able to preserve their culture.
But not Muslims in practice? What religion would they be actually practicing? Anyway, if Islam could have reached these "isolated" folks, why would you rule out the prospect that they too could have been genetically impacted from the same social forces that supposedly brought Arabic to the "urban centers", and the same social events that supposedly brought about slaves in "urban centers", as you claim?
Because the dominant culture and it's elite were in the urban centers. Many of the slaves were bought by the Pashas and were kept in the cities.
"Once in North Africa, it was tradition to parade newly-captured Christians through the streets, so people could jeer at them, and children could pelt them with refuse. At the slave market, men were made to jump about to prove they were not lame, and buyers often wanted them stripped naked again to see if they were healthy... The pasha or ruler of the area got a certain percentage of the slave take as a form of income tax. These were almost always men, and became government rather than private property. Unlike private slaves, who usually boarded with their masters, they lived in the bagnos or “baths,” as the pasha’s slave warehouses came to be called. It was common to shave the heads and beards of public slaves as an added humiliation, in a period when head and facial hair were an important part of a man’s identity.
Most of these public slaves spent the rest of their lives as galley slaves, and it is hard to imagine a more miserable existence. Men were chained three, four, or five to an oar, with their ankles chained together as well. Rowers never left their oars, and to the extent that they slept at all, they slept at their benches...When the pirate fleet was in port, galley slaves lived in the bagno and did whatever filthy, dangerous, or exhausting work the pasha set them to. This was usually stone-cutting and hauling, harbor-dredging, or heavy construction. The slaves in the Turkish sultan’s fleet did not even have this variety. They were often at sea for months on end, and stayed chained to their oars even in port. Their ships were life-long prisons.
Other slaves on the Barbary Coast had more varied jobs. Often they did household or agricultural work of the kind we associate with American slavery, but those who had skills were often rented out by their owners. Some masters simply turned slaves loose during the day with orders to return with a certain amount of money by evening or be severely beaten. Whatever they did, in Tunis and Tripoli, slaves usually wore an iron ring around an ankle, and were hobbled with a chain that weighed 25 or 30 pounds." http://www.spainvia.com/Christianslaves.htm
The article does go on to mention a few slaves captured by berber raids in the country side. But clearly the majority of slaves lived in the urban centers along the coast owned by turks and other elites. That is were one should expect to find the biggest genetic imprint of European slaves and indded the cities of North Africa are the most diverese genetically. However it is among certain Berber tribes where we find lighter phenotypical triats, not just Riffians but Kabyles and Chaoui etc. Check this out.
" Riffi Berbers are defined as Mediterranean. While only a few tribes have moderate Alpinid and Nordic admixture, these tribes are even closer to Europeans than to Africans. This is supported by a scientific study done on them in the Rif showing that some of the Rif Berbers have blond hair and blue or green eyes, a percentage higher than that found in Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese. Brett, Michael; & Fentress, Elizabeth, The Berbers (1997), p.4
You should find that last sentence very interesting since as I recall you stated that you believe that most of the Eurasian mtdna came from Spain. Also have you considered how it is is possible for the frequency of Eurasian mtDna to average over 70% in the Mahgreb. Did all the men abandon the native women?? Were captured European females to only ones giving birth?? A million of White slaves over a few hundred years scattered along the African coast doesn't really seem to satisfy the equation as it were.
Clarification of traits you are alluding to?
Both populations are thought to have been of Cro-Magnon origin and may possibly have come from central and southern Europe via northern Africa in some distant age. Both aboriginal groups had brown complexion, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair, and these characteristics still persist in a large number of present inhabitants of the islands, but otherwise they are scarcely distinguishable in appearance or culture from the people of of Spain. Neither original group now exists as a separate race, but the name Canarios is now appliedto all present residents. Their isolation was said to have helped preserved their Cro-Magnon genetic traits" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/247762/Guanche-and-Canario.
Very possible, since there were enough differences to make an observer favor a local origin over a diffusion theory. Also Europeans are generally Eurocentric, which is why they like to conceive of diffusion from north to south, when it could just as easily have been the other way around--i.e. from south to north, esp. given the rich local African lithic history and its spread into the Levant.
I would have no problem with it originating in Africa and spreading to Europe.
Now more about the megalith culture.. The phenomenon known to European archeologists as the Megalithic Culture covers all of Western Europe, the British Isles, North Africa, and the Mediterranean islands of Malta, Sardinia, and Corsica. This is basically the same area as occupied during the Upper Paleolithic by Cro-Magnon Man. While consisting of several different kinds of monuments, which will be outlined shortly, at this point our discussion will center on the alignments and stone circles near Carnac, a small village on the French peninsula of Brittany, and on nearby islands..
Haplogroup I-M26 is notable for its strong presence in Sardinia. Haplogroup I comprises approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians, and I-M26 is the predominant type of I among them.
Haplogroup I-M26 is practically absent east of France and Italy while it is found at low but significant frequencies outside of Sardinia in the Balearic Islands, Castile, the Basque Country, the Pyrenees, southern and western France, and parts of the Maghreb in North Africa, Great Britain, and Ireland. Haplogroup I-M26 appears to be the only subclade of Haplogroup I found among the Basques, but appears to be found at somewhat higher frequencies among the general populations of Castile in Spain and Béarn in France than among the population of ethnic Basques. The M26 mutation is found in native males inhabiting every geographic region where megaliths may be found, including such far-flung and culturally disconnected regions as the Canary Islands, the Balearic Isles, Corsica, Ireland, and Sweden." Rootsi et al. "Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe figure 1
Nope. The guy was saying that the Sinai peninsula is really a part of Asia. That is false.
Yes. The reason why the geographical map was brought up in the first place was to show that Egypt is adjacent to Palestine etc. That is the real issue. And Sinai is considered the Asian part of Egypt.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The Natufian's African ancestors came into the Levant in the Upper Paleolithic. The Delta specimens are Holocene specimens. You are mixing apples and oranges.
True. But since the folks in Palestine came out of North Africa, I would expect some similarites even after a few thousand years.
Anyway there is much to suggest that the relationship between the Delta region and and the Levant in predynastic consisted of more than simple trade.
"The Merimde(contemporary to the Badarians) culture of Lower Egypt and the Faiyum regions, shows strong connections with the Levant region, and Kozlowski and Ginter(1989) identify a Near Eastern origin, specifically the Jordanian valley region, although indigenous and Faiyum origins have been proposed. The villages of predynastic Lower Egypt have also been compared to the villages of the Levant and Upper Egypt(Badarians) and they were found to be much more similar to Levantine villages (Hoffman 1979, p.176). The El-Omari culture that later replaced the Merimde culture, also shows strong similarities to Palestinian cultures (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000, p.121). The culture that inhabits Lower Egypt before being absorbed into Naqada, Maadi-Buto, has been compared to Palestinian sites because of the similarities between architecture (Watrin and Blin 2003). While Lower Egyptian culture may have been absorbed into Upper Egyptian culture, cities of Lower Egypt still maintained some regional differences from Upper Egypt and some Maadi influences (Seeher 1992)."
"Watrin and Blin see an evolutionary path in Palestinian architecture of the Bronze Age: “an evolution from a rectangular surface shape of buildings (succeeding the subterranean dwellings) to an ovoid sub-surface structure . . . . Around the same period, the site of Maadi appears to present an evolution from semi-underground storage spaces of elliptical shape dug into the ground to semi-underground constructions of roughly sub-rectangular shape with walls built of rubble and mud bricks, and finally to subterranean architecture of oval shape in stone. They conclude from the architectural evidence that “Maadian architecture underwent both direct/indirect internal evolutions and internal/external evolution, and that the Maadian structures evolved into a hybrid architecture featuring elements of both Egyptian and Palestinian ancestry” (Olin and Blin 2003, p.564)." http://www.faiyum.com/html/chalcolithic__maadi-buto_.html
One of the most obvious evidences of foreign contact at Maadi is a unique type of dwelling that was apparently imported from southern Palestine. Though most of the houses in the settlement were typical of the usual Lower Egyptian variety, having an oval shape with post walls and frames of mud-daubed wickerwork, there were also true underground houses which were unique among the villages of prehistoric Egypt. However, such houses did exist at several sites around Beersheba in southern Palestine, leading archaeologists to believe that they were imports from that area to Egypt, perhaps even housing foreigners at Maadi.www.freeegypt.info/Pages/199/Maadi.html
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Here's something that might interest melchior7;
quote::
"The Barbary Pirates
The Barbary pirates, also sometimes called Ottoman corsairs, were pirates and privateers that operated from north Africa (the "Barbary coast"). They operated out of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. Their stronghold was along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast (a medieval term for the Maghreb after its Berber inhabitants), although their predation was said to extend throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North Atlantic, purportedly as far north as Iceland. As well as preying on shipping, raids were often made on European coastal towns. The pirates were responsible for capturing large numbers of Christian slaves from Europe, who were sold in slave markets in places such as Algeria and Morocco.
According to Robert Davis between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 17th century. These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages in Italy, Spain and Portugal, and from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland and North America. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793. Isolated cases of piracy have occurred on the ***Rif coast*** of Morocco even at the beginning of the 20th century, but the pirate communities which lived by plunder and could live by no other resource, vanished with the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.
The most famous corsairs were the Ottoman Barbarossa (meaning Redbeard) brothers, the nickname of Hızır (Hayreddin) and his older brother Oruç who took control of Algiers in the early 16th century and turned it into the center of Mediterranean piracy and privateering for the next three centuries, as well as establishing the Ottoman Empire presence in North Africa which lasted four centuries. Other famous Ottoman privateer-admirals included Turgut Reis (known as Dragut in the West), Kurtoğlu (known as Curtogoli in the West), Kemal Reis, Salih Reis and Koca Murat Reis."
Well, well. What do we have here? Whatever could have happened to all those millions of European slaves? The Rif Coast is not spared from implication in this whole affair. There's more:
"Although piracy had existed in the region throughout the decline of the Roman Empire, the barbarian invasions, the Muslim conquest and the Middle Ages, piracy became particularly flagrant in the 14th century when the local Berber dynasties were in decadence. The town of Bougie was then the most notorious pirate base..."
" The rich were allowed to redeem themselves, but the poor were condemned to slavery. Their masters would on occasion allow them to secure freedom by professing Islam."
Slaves were even in some cases allowed to become part of communities:
"The old city of Algiers, with its narrow streets, intense heat and lively trade, was a melting pot where the villagers would join slaves and freemen of many nationalities."
For details, see this site: Link...make what you will, with the site.
So much for Riffians having always been white.
I'm not detecting much liberal black guilt over this historical exploitation of white victims!
Enslaved Europeans may have left some genetic legacy in North Africa, but there is ancient evidence for light skinned, caucasoid north Africans.
Ancient Libyans (Meshwesh) according to Egyptians:
(hose ones aren't having a very good time either)
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Pretty much. Also we are talking about folks in the Rif mountains not the coastal areas.
I was including the Riffian region in the slave business. Since it took place here too, that kinda puts a damper on your "they be too poor to be involved in the slavery business", doesn't it.
quote: Anyway the reason they fled to the mountains in the first place was the arival of the Arabs, hence why the were able to preserve their culture.
Your ploy to use cultural conservatism as a platform to say that the Rif region was untouched by slavery has fallen flat, because the majority of these folks are Muslims, a culture brought by Arabs.
quote:
The article does go on to mention a few slaves captured by berber raids in the country side. But clearly the majority of slaves lived in the urban centers along the coast owned by turks and other elites. That is were one should expect to find the biggest genetic imprint of European slaves and indded the cities of North Africa are the most diverese genetically. However it is among certain Berber tribes where we find lighter phenotypical triats, not just Riffians but Kabyles and Chaoui etc. Check this out.
You are obviously overlooking cited material that says millions of European slaves were brought to the Maghreb between 16th and 17th century alone, and the includes those conducted by Riffians, the people you like to spare the impact of slavery.
You are also overlooking the fact that European imprint in the Maghrebi gene pool is disproportionately female contribution, and these lineages are not all that different from the European counterparts, suggesting that they are quite recent. If these are generally a reflection of prehistoric European migrations into North Africa as a response to the LGM, then one would expect a good degree of European male contribution alongside the female counterpart, but clearly this is not the case. The European male contribution in Maghrebi gene pool, report after report, has generally been zilch to minuscule.
quote:
" Riffi Berbers are defined as Mediterranean. While only a few tribes have moderate Alpinid and Nordic admixture, these tribes are even closer to Europeans than to Africans.
Photographic demonstrations have already been posted, displaying dark skin Riffian folk, and pirates who raided European territories for slave. You are expected to overlook these of course, because they don't play well into your storyline.
As for this "Mediterranean" thing, it's just nonsense. "Mediterranean" is a name for a sea. And the guy(s) who wrote the above, must not have ever looked into Imazighen male gene pool.
quote:
You should find that last sentence very interesting since as I recall you stated that you believe that most of the Eurasian mtdna came from Spain.
I do believe much of the Maghrebi mtDNA gene pool came by way of the Iberian peninsula. I'm basing this on DNA reports, that generally rely on larger Moroccan samples than any other parts of the Maghreb. That is not to say mtDNA had not arrived from other European territories.
quote:Also have you considered how it is is possible for the frequency of Eurasian mtDna to average over 70% in the Mahgreb. Did all the men abandon the native women?? Were captured European females to only ones giving birth?? A million of White slaves over a few hundred years scattered along the African coast doesn't really seem to satisfy the equation as it were.
Actually, these questions are more tailored for you than anyone else. Under your assumption, as noted above, there should be considerable male gene pool accompanying the female gene pool, if these just happen to be immigrants escaping adverse conditions in Europe, and arriving in North Africa on their own free will. So yes, that's a good question, and maybe you have a good answer for it: Why is the European contribution in the Maghrebi gene pool disproportionately female, and essentially almost none, from the male side?
But since female slaves were favored, and actually were used to satisfy Maghrebi males, it makes perfect sense that any offspring will carry European female contribution before it did a European male. That should really be a no-brainer. And as a reminder, since these things seem to disappear in the conversation, the case being push here, is that a good majority of the Maghrebi maternal gene pool is fairly recent, and much of them very likely trace their origins in the historic periods rather than the prehistoric. This is not to say, no prehistoric contributions are out of question.
quote:
Both populations are thought to have been of Cro-Magnon origin and may possibly have come from central and southern Europe via northern Africa in some distant age.
Which doesn't make sense, since modern Maghrebi look nothing like the Cro-Magnon--See Brace. Brace also saw clear distinctions between Canary Island specimens and the Maghrebi series. Plus, Cro-Magnon is not even a type to begin with, not to mention that even the Epipaleothic Maghrebi series are not duplicates of European Cro-Magnon series. They are distinct. You'd expect them to be exact duplicates of the European Cro-Magnons, if the said Maghrebi samples were actually Europeans. They are simply called Cro-Magnon for the same reasons Europeans like to call anybody with narrow high-bridge nose a "caucasoid". It is just silly Eurocentric fantasy, and their narcissistic false sense of being the center of the universe.
quote: Yes. The reason why the geographical map was brought up in the first place was to show that Egypt is adjacent to Palestine etc. That is the real issue. And Sinai is considered the Asian part of Egypt.
One doesn't have to rely on a fantasy just to make that claim. However, the guy was wrongly informed about the Sinai, and probably actually believed what he was saying...until he was educated on the fact to contrary. He could have simply said Sinai was relatively close to the Levant; nobody argues that. But just because its close, doesn't make it factually part of the Levant.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
True. But since the folks in Palestine came out of North Africa, I would expect some similarites even after a few thousand years.
Actually, Palestinians are part of those OOA migrations that took place in the Upper Paleolithic, which is generally determined to have taken place via the southern route from the African Horn region. So they had plenty of time to undergo micro-evolution enough to distinguish them from continental Africans.
As for all that stuff about signs of cultural connections between north Africa and the Levant; again, there is such a thing as "trade relations".
Take yourself for instance; just because you might choose to drive a Japanese car, doesn't mean you look Japanese, or came from Japan.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
I'm not detecting much liberal black guilt over this historical exploitation of white victims!
LOL @ this guy; sore from discussion elsewhere. Unlike you, I'm not making any excuses for African slave traders. You make excuses about European slave traders, just to push forward propaganda that their imperialist interventions in Africa are "humanitarian".
quote:
You assume that the "light-skinned" Tammahou have connections to modern Maghrebi, primarily because they are "light-skinned" and were said to live westward from AE, but if I asked you for proof of this, my guess is that you'll struggle.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Old Doctore:
How large was the Maghrebi population at the time? Modern Libya was only 2 million strong in the 1960's; 6 million today, with 1.5 million being recent Tropical African immigrants.
Couldn't tell you, as I don't have that information at my disposal. However, the important thing to note here, is that European slaves were hot commodity at one time, and the stats are considerable. It's safe to say that many of these remained in the Maghreb after their release. As another poster pointed out a few posts ago, Eurocentrists like to imply that "black" slaves had darkened coastal Maghrebi, yet ignore the significant history of trade in European slaves in the Maghreb.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer,
I was including the Riffian region in the slave business. Since it took place here too, that kinda puts a damper on your "they be too poor to be involved in the slavery business", doesn't it.
No your quotes mentioned Black pirates on the coast
Your ploy to use cultural conservatism as a platform to say that the Rif region was untouched by slavery has fallen flat, because the majority of these folks are Muslims, a culture brought by Arabs.
Yet they have managed to retain their language and culture. Your proposed scenario would entail thousands of European slaves being sold to peasant Berbers in remote mountain villages. Can you find corroborating records of this or better yet, any historical mention at all?
You are obviously overlooking cited material that says millions of European slaves were brought to the Maghreb between 16th and 17th century alone, and the includes those conducted by Riffians, the people you like to spare the impact of slavery.
No I have not overlooked it. I’m saying that most of the slaves were sold to the wealthy in the cities or used as galley men in the barbary corsairs etc. If these are generally a reflection of prehistoric European migrations into North Africa as a response to the LGM, then one would expect a good degree of European male contribution alongside the female counterpart, but clearly this is not the case. The European male contribution in Maghrebi gene pool, report after report, has generally been zilch to minuscule
I know you are not new to this topic and I’m certain you are familiar with the argument that the Eurasians in the coastal areas were invaded by E-m81 carriers, presumbaly during the expansion Capsian culture. The fate of the Eurasian male then is not hard is to divine.
Photographic demonstrations have already been posted, displaying dark skin Riffian folk, and pirates who raided European territories for slave. You are expected to overlook these of course, because they don't play well into your storyline.
I have addressed this in another thread. It really deserves its own post but I will say it here and that is most Blacks in Morocco back then and Today are not indigenous but came from elsewhere. Hence those Blacks do not represent the Riffian Berbers. BTW some of the illustrations posted look the drawings of A.J Rogers circa 1940 or so.
Do you really believe that Black phenotypical traits could so completely disappear among so many modern Berbers especially when White traits are supposed to be recessive? Here is a young Berber girl.
Here is another
As for this "Mediterranean" thing, it's just nonsense. "Mediterranean" is a name for a sea. And the guy(s) who wrote the above, must not have ever looked into Imazighen male gene pool.
Mediterranean is term chosen to describe the people who live in southern Europe, the Levant and North Africa who share certain phenotypical traits. Being that they all live along the borders of the Mediterranean sea, the term Mediterranean would seem appropriate enough.
Why is the European contribution in the Maghrebi gene pool disproportionately female, and essentially almost none, from the male side?
I have answered that above.
But since female slaves were favored, and actually were used to satisfy Maghrebi males, it makes perfect sense that any offspring will carry European female contribution before it did a European male
I have yet to find an example of a society where the males prefer to have their progeny from foreign slaves rather then their own wives who share their racial makeup…and to the extent that they virtually blot their own phenotype out of the overall demogrpahic You have to admit that is a bit of an extravagant theory
Which doesn't make sense, since modern Maghrebi look nothing like the Cro-Magnon--See Brace. Brace also saw clear distinctions between Canary Island specimens and the Maghrebi series. Plus, Cro-Magnon is not even a type to begin with, not to mention that even the Epipaleothic Maghrebi series are not duplicates of European Cro-Magnon series. They are distinct. You'd expect them to be exact duplicates of the European Cro-Magnons, if the said Maghrebi samples were actually Europeans
I can’t seem to find where Brace addresses the Maghrebi series.
nobody argues that. But just because its close, doesn't make it factually part of the Levant.
And that is all subjective just like the geographical entity called Africa..or Europe...based on arbitrary lines someone drew up. The proximity of the two areas is the only relevant issue.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
You assume that the "light-skinned" Tammahou have connections to modern Maghrebi, primarily because they are "light-skinned" and were said to live westward from AE,
What would lead you to claim otherwise? Ancient Libyans are claimed to have been Berbers and Today many of them cluster genetically with folks in the Magrheb.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
No your quotes mentioned Black pirates on the coast
You are suffering from an acute case of denial. The narrative of that whole cited passage and its link was piracy, i.e. raiding European ships and territory near the coasts for slaves. They are certainly not talking about stealing Mercedes Benzes or bread. LOL
And if you still choose to remain ignorant of said passage and link, yet another link replete with photographs was provided, talking about raids of Riffian pirates for slave trade.
quote:
Yet they have managed to retain their language and culture.
So what? That has no bearing on their ancestry. Many other Africans have done the same; adopted foreign religion without loosing a great part of their language and culture; that wouldn't be unique to Riffians. Nor are Riffians the only Amazigh folks to want to conserve their indigenous language.
quote: Your proposed scenario would entail thousands of European slaves being sold to peasant Berbers in remote mountain villages.
Your assumption is that every person kidnapped was necessarily sold as a slave for solely profit, and not for personal gratification. Your other assumptions include, assuming that every Riffian is too "poor" and/or that as a "community", their present condition is necessarily a reflection of the past, that Riffians were not involved in the slave trade, and that slaves were never released, slaves were not given opportunity to live in towns or villages and integrate with the larger society. You have been proven wrong on all counts.
quote: Can you find corroborating records of this or better yet, any historical mention at all?
Yes, the cited links and passages you have chosen to ignore.
On that note, can you now answer one of the questions you've chosen to ignore for some time now: What happen to millions of European slaves in the Maghreb?
quote:
No I have not overlooked it. I’m saying that most of the slaves were sold to the wealthy in the cities or used as galley men in the barbary corsairs etc.
You are making wishful assumptions that have no record behind them. Millions of slaves could not have just ended up in the hands of a handful of the wealthy. You also forget that this is a region where a single male can have literally as many wives he is able to handle. So, every household of one Amazigh Muslim/Arabized male with many wives, including European female slaves, along with so many children, will and can have considerable imprint on the larger population. The interesting thing about this tradition [not about slaves, but many wives], as it happens in other parts of Africa, is that it is generally not restricted to just the wealthy.
quote:
I know you are not new to this topic and I’m certain you are familiar with the argument that the Eurasians in the coastal areas were invaded by E-m81 carriers, presumbaly during the expansion Capsian culture. The fate of the Eurasian male then is not hard is to divine.
This makes no sense. You are implying that E-M81 came from outside of Africa. E-M81 could not have emerged outside of Africa, which then leaves only one possibility: it emerged in the African continent itself.
Your assumption about an exogenous E-M81 origin has no legs, but even *if* we supposed it did, you'd in effect be saying these are returning Africans!
quote:
I have addressed this in another thread. It really deserves its own post but I will say it here and that is most Blacks in Morocco back then and Today are not indigenous but came from elsewhere. Hence those Blacks do not represent the Riffian Berbers. BTW some of the illustrations posted look the drawings of A.J Rogers circa 1940 or so.
Where did Black Riffians specifically come from, under what specific circumstance, according to what specific documents, and what specific language (not language family) did they speak? If you have the answers to these, then you just might have an idea of what you are talking about. PS: In fact, where did the original Tamazight speakers come from?
I don't have specifics about the precise source of the photos of "black" Riffian pirates and slave-raiders, but if it were the Rogers fellow's drawing, then what of it? Given the guy is a European of a byegone era, one would expect him to be even more racist and denial of "black" Amazigh than you are, but the fact that he mentions them at all, should be telling. It refutes your "them Riffians all be lily white, and hence, cannot be children of European female slaves".
quote:
Do you really believe that Black phenotypical traits could so completely disappear among so many modern Berbers especially when White traits are supposed to be recessive? Here is a young Berber girl.
I don't know what you mean by "black phenotypical traits" to begin with; what do you mean by it? How do you know they've disappeared? And again, where could the ancestral Tamazight speakers come from, if not from within the continent?
quote:
Mediterranean is term chosen to describe the people who live in southern Europe, the Levant and North Africa who share certain phenotypical traits. Being that they all live along the borders of the Mediterranean sea, the term Mediterranean would seem appropriate enough.
What is a "Mediterranean" trait that is presumably not found in other humans? LOL
quote:
I have answered that above.
Your answer above doesn't hold up. Care to try again, with material this time perhaps?
quote:
I have yet to find an example of a society where the males prefer to have their progeny from foreign slaves rather then their own wives who share their racial makeup…
That's your assumption, and it has no corroborative document behind it. I have yet to find an example of settler immigrants, escaping adverse condition, that only comprised of women, and not their male partners. Which looks more a likely prospect, slavery on the one hand, OR a community of migrating women with no accompanying husbands or male counterparts, who somehow came to be the preferred mating partners of local coastal Africans?
Ps: You might not be aware of this, but there is such a thing as local north African mtDNA markers.
quote:
I can’t seem to find where Brace addresses the Maghrebi series.
I believe I did mention that it was "Brace et al. (2005). If you can find in there, where he claims the Canary Island twig is a duplicate of the Maghrebi twig, then post it for me and the rest here.
quote:
And that is all subjective just like the geographical entity called Africa..or Europe...based on arbitrary lines someone drew up. The proximity of the two areas is the only relevant issue.
Tectonic plates are only subjective to fools.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
What would lead you to claim otherwise?
I have not made a definite claim that they are Tamazight speakers; I just don't know. If you do, then please provide us evidence that the Tammahou were Tamazight speakers, and what dialect the specifically spoke.
On other hand, if you are asking me to prove a negative, well then, that in itself is just a ridiculous request, isn't it.
quote: Ancient Libyans are claimed to have been Berbers and Today many of them cluster genetically with folks in the Magrheb.
Which "ancient Libyan" ethnic groups did you test genetically? Let me have your full DNA analysis.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I'm not detecting much liberal black guilt over this historical exploitation of white victims!
Well I can't speak for others but I myself am not liberal nor am I black.
quote:Enslaved Europeans may have left some genetic legacy in North Africa, but there is ancient evidence for light skinned, caucasoid north Africans.
Can you please cite this evidence?
quote:Ancient Libyans (Meshwesh) according to Egyptians:
(hose ones aren't having a very good time either)
The second picture is not light-skinned but dark. There are more depictions of dark Meshwesh.
And again light or fair-skinned Libyans did not appear until late Middle Kingdom times. Before this, ALL Libyans were portrayed as dark as the Egpytians themselves i.e. BLACK. This was cited by many Egyptologists and even historians like Oric Bates to anthropologists like Lloyd Briggs have all emphatically stated that the original inhabitants for all of North Africa were dark (black) Hamites and lighter skinned peoples entered from across the Mediterranean during the Iron Age likely during the period of the Sea Peoples.
There is no such thing as white aboriginal populations of Africa! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The second picture is not light-skinned but dark. There are more depictions of dark Meshwesh.
And again light or fair-skinned Libyans did not appear until late Middle Kingdom times. Before this, ALL Libyans were portrayed as dark as the Egpytians themselves i.e. BLACK. This was cited by many Egyptologists and even historians like Oric Bates to anthropologists like Lloyd Briggs have all emphatically stated that the original inhabitants for all of North Africa were dark (black) Hamites and lighter skinned peoples entered from across the Mediterranean during the Iron Age likely during the period of the Sea Peoples.
There is no such thing as white aboriginal populations of Africa!
The picture above is supposed to Libyans prior to late Middle Kingdom were black? This is your methodology Mike111 junior? The dates of when the Sea people and other migrants came into N. Africa is uncertain. Be a good scholar and leave it at that, but no. Obviously the people in the painting above are dressed and have hairstyles not of indigenous people but of the Mediterranean migrants. This should be apparent also from the reddish tanned Mediterranean skin tone.
so these guys are "Black" to you:
the first and second people are darker than the Meshwesh in the painting, The last guy is not even Mediterranean but a Turk!
stop the nonsense. You must think you're helping black people by trying to pretend there is some firm date in which Sea people or other migrants came into N. Africa. Well, playing this game doesn't do a damn thing for black people one way or the other, hero
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote: ----------------------------------------- You are making wishful assumptions that have no record behind them. Millions of slaves could not have just ended up in the hands of a handful of the wealthy. You also forget that this is a region where a single male can have literally as many wives he is able to handle. So, every household of one Amazigh Muslim/Arabized male with many wives, including European female slaves, along with so many children, will and can have considerable imprint on the larger population. The interesting thing about this tradition [not about slaves, but many wives], as it happens in other parts of Africa, is that it is generally not restricted to just the wealthy. -----------------------------------------
What world do you live in.
You have to have money to buy slaves or inherit them from someone who had money to buy slaves.
Poor people or those of limited means could barely afford bread and you would have us believe they could buy slaves as expensive as they were.
Don't run from me "Explorer" like you always do when receiving an intellectual thrashing because your crackpot statements are challenged.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote: ------------------------------------ Your assumption is that every person kidnapped was necessarily sold as a slave for solely profit, and not for personal gratification. ------------------------------------
Why would someone who is not over the top eccentric AND exhorbently wealthy do something like that? There were plenty of lets say women for hire available and they certainly were a lot cheaper than purchasing a slave, feeding a slave, providing clothing for a slave, and providing health care for a slave.
Slaves were purchased to work and give a return back on the so called "investment".
"Explorer", the intellectual thrashing I'm about to administer to you (once again) will probably be one of the most servere I have given you.
Don't run. You can't escape.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The narrative of that whole cited passage and its link was piracy, i.e. raiding European ships and territory near the coasts for slaves. They are certainly not talking about stealing Mercedes Benzes or bread. LOL
I don't know where our disconnect is. I'm saying most of the slaves were sent to large cities along the coast, not in isolated mountain villages.
Many other Africans have done the same; adopted foreign religion without loosing a great part of their language and culture
Preserving their language and culture often goes hand and hand with maintaining some genetic integrity. For if they were to mix with Arabs and others their language and culture is more likely to be compromised.
Your assumption is that every person kidnapped was necessarily sold as a slave for solely profit, and not for personal gratification. Your other assumptions include, assuming that every Riffian is too "poor" and/or that as a "community", their present condition is necessarily a reflection of the past, that Riffians were not involved in the slave trade, and that slaves were never released, slaves were not given opportunity to live in towns or villages and integrate with the larger society. You have been proven wrong on all counts.
Not at all so far most of the literature has slaves living in the major towns. Why would freed European slaves (many who were ransomed and returned to Europe btw) want to go live up in some isolated village away from the the coasts and lessen their chances of ever returning home?
So, every household of one Amazigh Muslim/Arabized male with many wives, including European female slaves, along with so many children, will and can have considerable imprint on the larger population.
Yes it would take about every household. And I'm sure it was never the majority that held slaves. Also I guess that they became so obsessed with European woemn that they neglected their own wives to where there are few L carriers. Them European womins sure musta been sumpthin!
You are implying that E-M81 came from outside of Africa.
Where are getting this from. E-M81 likely arose in the Eastern Sahara. These folks spread westward and encoutered Eurasians along the coasts.
Where did Black Riffians specifically come from, under what specific circumstance, according to what specific documents, and what specific language (not language family) did they speak?
Well, I could quote you facts about Morocco. That most Blacks are called Gnawas and are descendants of Sub Saharans brought to Morocco for various reasons. The few origanl Blacks are from the Draa valeey in Southern Morocco. I could also quote Ibn Batutta and others who travelled throught Africa and mentions that the land of the Blacks began in southern Mauritania etc...if you haven't already heard of all of this.
I don't have specifics about the precise source of the photos of "black" Riffian pirates and slave-raiders, but if it were the Rogers fellow's drawing, then what of it? Given the guy is a European of a byegone era, one would expect him to be even more racist and denial of "black" Amazigh than you are, but the fact that he mentions them at all, should be telling. It refutes your "them Riffians all be lily white, and hence, cannot be children of European female slaves".
I don't have specifics about the precise source of the photos of "black" Riffian pirates and slave-raiders, but if it were the Rogers fellow's drawing, then what of it? Given the guy is a European of a byegone era,
No, I actually meant J A Rogers a Jamiacan American who was known for writing about famous Blacks in history in the 1940's. Actually checked on the drawing and its not from him but dates back to 1800s.
It refutes your "them Riffians all be lily white, and hence, cannot be children of European female slaves".
It would be incredbible for the population to change from the Blacks depicted in those drawings to some of the fair skinned Riffians you see Today, wouldn't it?
I don't know what you mean by "black phenotypical traits" to begin with; what do you mean by it?
Why the ones depicted in that drawing, of course.
How do you know they've disappeared?
If youf ind anyone who looks like that in Northern Morocco you bet your last dollar they are immigrants from Senegal or some other Sub Saharan country.
And again, where could the ancestral Tamazight speakers come from, if not from within the continent?
Proto-berber was likely brought to the Maghreb with E-M81 carriers from East Africa.
That's your assumption, and it has no corroborative document behind it.
My assumption is that no self respecting ethnicity would consistently choose to have offspring with a foreign race over their own. it's unheard of.
I have yet to find an example of settler immigrants, escaping adverse condition, that only comprised of women, and not their male partners. I guess I didn't explain that clearly enough. the Eurasians setllers were invaded, the males killed off. That is the likley scenario. And fits in with the common narrative that we find in many historical invasions.
Ps: You might not be aware of this, but there is such a thing as local north African mtDNA markers.
Yup like U6 also found in Iberia and the Canary Islands. Hint..remember the Guanche.
Tectonic plates are only subjective to fools.
Again the the sub plate of the Sinai Peninsula is no barrier for folks passing to and from Palestine (Israel). I should know I made the trip myself.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
I have not made a definite claim that they are Tamazight speakers; I just don't know.
Fine. we'll leave it at that then.
Here is something you might find interesting. the recent discovery of an ancient culture in the South West Sahara
"Elena A. A. Garcea, an archaeologist at the University of Cassino in Italy, identified ceramics with wavy lines and zigzag patterns as Kiffian, a culture associated with northern Africa. Pots bearing a pointillistic pattern were linked to the Tenerians, a people named for the Ténéré Desert, a stretch of the Sahara known to Tuareg nomads as a “desert within a desert.”
Christopher M. Stojanowski, an archaeologist at Arizona State University, said the two cultures were “biologically distinct groups.” The bones and teeth showed that in contrast to the robust Kiffians, the Tenerians were typically short and lean and apparently led less rigorous lives. Perhaps, Dr. Stojanowski said, they had developed more advanced hunting technologies for taking smaller fish and game.
The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people not other groups from the southern Sahara." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/926467/1/ Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
And again light or fair-skinned Libyans did not appear until late Middle Kingdom times. Before this, ALL Libyans were portrayed as dark as the Egpytians themselves i.e. BLACK. This was cited by many Egyptologists and even historians like Oric Bates to anthropologists like Lloyd Briggs have all emphatically stated that the original inhabitants for all of North Africa were dark (black) Hamites and lighter skinned peoples entered from across the Mediterranean during the Iron Age likely during the period of the Sea Peoples
The Light skinned Tamahu are first mentioned in a report by Pepi I of the sixth dynasty circa 2200 B. C.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I don't know where our disconnect is. I'm saying most of the slaves were sent to large cities along the coast, not in isolated mountain villages.
Our disconnect is that you are trying to protect yourself from truth that is not comforting to you. To do this, you feel compelled in fictitiously "sanitizing" the Riffians as the exception to the rule, that is to say--they were untouched by piracy in slavery. Records show otherwise.
quote:
Preserving their language and culture often goes hand and hand with maintaining some genetic integrity.
Your post doesn't make sense, as the Riffians are not unique from either other Tamazight speakers or other Africans, when maintaining a certain degree of cultural conservatism. How does this absolve them from slavery? And even your use of cultural conservatism as a crutch fails, because mass adoption of Islam is not a sign of cultural conservatism.
quote: For if they were to mix with Arabs and others their language and culture is more likely to be compromised.
The Riffians, as with other coastal Tamazight speakers, have been genetically impacted by Arabs. In fact, coastal Tamazight speakers carry more Arab male markers than they do European, which is minuscule to non-existent. This includes Riffians.
You are getting your impressions of coastal Tamazight speakers from unsubstantiated emotional instincts instead of facts.
quote:
Not at all so far most of the literature has slaves living in the major towns. Why would freed European slaves (many who were ransomed and returned to Europe btw) want to go live up in some isolated village away from the the coasts and lessen their chances of ever returning home?
You are closing your mind to facts you are being educated about. Even the so-called villages you unwarrantably presume to be free from the Maghrebi slave trade do not exist! They have all essentially been implicated in and impacted by piracy in the slave trade. Therefore, slaves released into the larger society had found their way into all these places, just as slaves outside of the Maghreb in many other places remained in those places. You were not paying attention to the cited material, which states that preconditions were met for their release in many cases, like say, adopting Islam and so forth. Pretty much, they were allowed to dissipate into surrounding communities only when they were perceived as being "fit for social integration". As such, many of those who were freed, became integrated into larger coastal north African societies and spent the remainder of their lives there.
I have never heard any such thing about Maghrebi slaves returning en mass back to Europe. Give me the historic documents that attest to this, and the specific stats.
quote:
And I'm sure it was never the majority that held slaves.
You are sure in absence of evidence?
Historical records of slavery and genetic evidence are stacked against you. Where were the millions of slaves kept...under the roof of just a handful of rich guys? LOL
quote: Also I guess that they became so obsessed with European woemn that they neglected their own wives to where there are few L carriers. Them European womins sure musta been sumpthin!
That's right, you are guessing, and never minding facts. You made the calculation that coastal north Africans neglected their "own wives"; the Maghrebi-specific L type uniparental markers, including the L-derived M and U markers, are all traces of autochthonous Maghrebi female presence. You miscalculated.
Moments ago you dismissed this fact as all but non-existent, and now you've been forced to modify that miscalculation by upgrading from non-existent to "a few". Cerny et al. had found something interesting: substantial "sub-Saharan" maternal gene pool in the "Berber" speaking section of the Tunisian population while the Arabized section had less. Expectation intimated that the "Arabized" section would have had greater impact by any slave trade of "sub-Saharan" African women than the non-Arabized counterparts. From this, it dawned on them that many 'western' research teams base their studies on fairly small, patchy, and often highly selective samplings from the far western vestiges of coastal Maghreb rather than a comprehensive understanding of Maghrebi populations. These so-called "sub-Saharan" markers are actually traces of autochthonous Tamazight maternally-mediated uniparental markers.
quote: You are implying that E-M81 came from outside of Africa.
Where are getting this from.
From you. Whom else would it come from?
quote: E-M81 likely arose in the Eastern Sahara. These folks spread westward and encoutered Eurasians along the coasts.
LOL. Eurasians exclusively of European females stranded on African territory, with negligible to no male presence, not even male kids?...and conversely, wandering east African E-M81 carriers with no accompanying women of their own whatsoever?
Can't you see that your undocumented speculation is by far more fantastic and highly improbable than the accounting by the documented historic slavery in the Maghreb, which you have relegated to insignificance despite facts?
quote:
Well, I could quote you facts about Morocco.
Please do quote the facts that presumably answer the questions specifically asked of you. I'd like to know what their specific ethnicity was, the records of when these "black" Riffians arrived, the specific language [not language family] they spoke, and under what specific documented circumstances. I'm not looking for hearsay rumors about slaves or what have you. Just straight, documented facts geared specifically to the questions asked.
quote: The few origanl Blacks are from the Draa valeey in Southern Morocco. I could also quote Ibn Batutta and others who travelled throught Africa and mentions that the land of the Blacks began in southern Mauritania etc...if you haven't already heard of all of this.
I haven't already heard how "black Riffians" came to be in the Rif mountains, what language they spoke before they arrived, when they arrived, under what circumstance, and according to what contemporaneous written records. I assume you have, and accordingly, I await your reply.
quote: Actually checked on the drawing and its not from him but dates back to 1800s.
Well then, there you go. Busting you yet again.
quote:
It would be incredbible for the population to change from the Blacks depicted in those drawings to some of the fair skinned Riffians you see Today, wouldn't it?
Why would it be incredible?
I've also asked you to tell us where the ancestral Tamazight speakers came from, if they were not "black Africans" from within Africa; not surprisingly, you never followed through.
quote: Why the ones depicted in that drawing, of course.
What about them?
quote: How do you know they've disappeared?
If youf ind anyone who looks like that in Northern Morocco you bet your last dollar they are immigrants from Senegal or some other Sub Saharan country.
If I had bet in that direction, I would have lost my last dollar on the bet based on photographic record. Is that your intended point?
quote: Proto-berber was likely brought to the Maghreb with E-M81 carriers from East Africa.
Would they have been "lily white" or "black" folks? If the later, then how do you figure their facial "phenotype" disappeared?
quote:
My assumption is that no self respecting ethnicity would consistently choose to have offspring with a foreign race over their own. it's unheard of.
Exactly. Your assumption is premised on emotional thinking, not on any specific document. It's unheard of, because the premise of your assumption is a fairytale to begin with.
In the meantime: What then do you do with female slaves, which the bulk of Maghrebi slaves were, if not primarily for gratification? Give me your best guess.
quote:
I guess I didn't explain that clearly enough. the Eurasians setllers were invaded, the males killed off. That is the likley scenario. And fits in with the common narrative that we find in many historical invasions.
You are so funny. On the one hand, you say that going by documented history of trafficking of European slaves, overwhelmingly females, in the Maghreb, is a highly improbable prospect for a considerable segment of European maternal inheritance in Maghrebi gene pool, and treat such accounting as tantamount to advocating native Maghrebi male preference for slave women over their own. On the other hand, you explain the European maternal inheritance off as an "invasion" by African males, that "killed off Eurasian males". It is interesting how you portray Africans as THE "invaders" here--on African territory, and not the supposed "Eurasian" elements who actually came from overseas. Anyhow, you also seem to be oblivious to the hypocrisy in your undocumented version of events leading to intrusion of European maternal inheritance in the Maghrebi gene pool, in that your theory too, seems to suggest that these "African invaders" had preference for captured "Eurasian" females over their own. So in the end, even your own theory is essentially implying something like slavery took place, to account for the European maternal intrusion in Maghrebi gene pool, only at a different time, and one that is undocumented. Which is better: your undocumented speculation, or an explanation premised on documented history?
quote:
Yup like U6 also found in Iberia and the Canary Islands. Hint..remember the Guanche.
U6 is not the only autochthonous clade; there are several L-types that appear to be divergent Maghrebi-specific versions of "sub-Saharan" clades, aside from M1.
quote:
Again the the sub plate of the Sinai Peninsula is no barrier for folks passing to and from Palestine (Israel). I should know I made the trip myself.
Who said anything about a barrier? We are talking about your silly claim that tectonic plates are subjective. Try telling that to Tsunami and earthquake victims. To educate you, "barrier" does not equal "tectonic plate". At any rate, I imagine a barrier would be created on the Sinai border, unless you are here to tell us that the Egyptian government treats its Sinai territory as a lawless no-man's land? Bottom line: No matter how you slice and dice it, Sinai is pretty much an integral part of Africa--not part of the Levant!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I have not made a definite claim that they are Tamazight speakers; I just don't know.
Fine. we'll leave it at that then.
Here is something you might find interesting. the recent discovery of an ancient culture in the South West Sahara
"Elena A. A. Garcea, an archaeologist at the University of Cassino in Italy, identified ceramics with wavy lines and zigzag patterns as Kiffian, a culture associated with northern Africa. Pots bearing a pointillistic pattern were linked to the Tenerians, a people named for the Ténéré Desert, a stretch of the Sahara known to Tuareg nomads as a “desert within a desert.”
Christopher M. Stojanowski, an archaeologist at Arizona State University, said the two cultures were “biologically distinct groups.” The bones and teeth showed that in contrast to the robust Kiffians, the Tenerians were typically short and lean and apparently led less rigorous lives. Perhaps, Dr. Stojanowski said, they had developed more advanced hunting technologies for taking smaller fish and game.
The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people not other groups from the southern Sahara." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/926467/1/
Tell me it ain't so. You are not equating any of these with the Tammahou, are you? If so, according to what evidence?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass:
The picture above is supposed to Libyans prior to late Middle Kingdom were black? This is your methodology Mike111 junior? The dates of when the Sea people and other migrants came into N. Africa is uncertain. Be a good scholar and leave it at that, but no. Obviously the people in the painting above are dressed and have hairstyles not of indigenous people but of the Mediterranean migrants. This should be apparent also from the reddish tanned Mediterranean skin tone.
No, lying moron. The picture is a New Kingdom depiction of Libyans. Just because light-skinned Libyans did not appear until the late Middle Kingdom does NOT mean black Libyans ceased to exist, dummy! And if you payed attention to what I said, the reddish "tanned" complexion as you put it is merely faded paint as anyone with eyes can see darker traces of original complexion around the face while even the black hair is faded.
quote:so these guys are "Black" to you:
[typical DUMB picture spam of Lyingass]
the first and second people are darker than the Meshwesh in the painting, The last guy is not even Mediterranean but a Turk!
Of course NON of them are black to me or anyone, but that is irrelevant because again the picture I showed shows the paint has faded so trying to match the complexion is useless.
You'd be better off trying to match the men in the ancient portrait with modern Berbers like this..
Notice his features are like those of the men.
quote:
^^^^LIBYANS
So? That one picture above no way refutes anything I said about who the original Libyans were and how they looked.
These are modern people of rural Libya away from the coastal areas.
These are Siwa Berbers of Egypt known to have Libyan ancestry.
quote:stop the nonsense. You must think you're helping black people by trying to pretend there is some firm date in which Sea people or other migrants came into N. Africa. Well, playing this game doesn't do a damn thing for black people one way or the other, hero
LMAO The only one spewing nonsense is YOU as always!! First of all, my intention is not to "help black people" as they don't need any help! YOU might think black people are helpless due to your racism and bigotry, but not I. My only intention as it has ever been in this forum is to further the spread of TRUTH and FACTS. Second of all, I never placed any "firm" date of European and other entry into North Africa. It is a fact that there were various waves of migration into North Africa from the north. That they are immigrants and not aboriginal is the point!
So the only one playing games as always is YOU, you play the same tired game of incessant denial of the label BLACK when it comes to Africa but you obviously didn't have a problem using it just now! You also play the same game of nonsense picture spam of anyone with skin darker than pale. Who do you think you're fooling, b|tch??! We know you are nothing but a pathetic white girl playing agent provocateur in this forum. Your game has ended long ago!
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
that is to say--they were untouched by piracy in slavery. Records show otherwise.
Records show slaves being brought to slave markets in major cities.
And even your use of cultural conservatism as a crutch fails, because mass adoption of Islam is not a sign of cultural conservatism.
Normally Islam was spread by the sword, but aside from that Rif is still spoken by 4 million people. In contrast in most other parts of the country, Arabic and arabic customs hold sway. The reason is obviously because of the greater historical influx of Arabs and foreigners in thses areas. That is not to say that Riffs are totally pure as you accuse me of claiming, but that they have expereinced much less cultural intrusion than many others which has alllowed them to maintain their languages and customs to an appreciable degree.
Where were the millions of slaves kept...under the roof of just a handful of rich guys? LOL
No, I suppose they were kept hidden in a handful of mountain hamlets instead. Records show that European slaves were shipped all around the Islamic world, many to Instanbul and some as far as Iran.
And you constantly refer to Riffians as coastal people which is conventiently misleading.
"Riffians" or "Rif Berbers" are a tribe of Amazigh in Northern Morocco. They are considered tough and hardened people because they live in an extremely uninviting environment in the Rif Mountains. This area of land is located in the northwestern portion of Africa. It consists of deserts, mountains, and rolling fields."
Living in the mountians is an important factor here for obvious reasons.
That's right, you are guessing, and never minding facts. You made the calculation that coastal north Africans neglected their "own wives An ineviatble conclusion if their current phenotype is a result of the importation of White slaves as you seem to believe.
the Maghrebi-specific L type uniparental markers, including the L-derived M and U markers, are all traces of autochthonous Maghrebi female presence. You miscalculated. Moments ago you dismissed this fact as all but non-existent, and now you've been forced to modify that miscalculation by upgrading from non-existent to "a few".
I don't know that I said non existent, perhaps I was as refering to the Sub saharan phenotype among Riffians. But the fact is Eurasian mtdna represents the great majority. And U is basically Eurasian as well. For the record Riffians also have some of the highest R Y-dna frequencies found among any other Berber group.
"You are implying that E-M81 came from outside of Africa." Where are you getting this from? From you. Whom else would it come from?
And yet I never said anything of the sort, nor have I implied it. Your biased assumptions tend to get the better of your judgement apparently.
LOL. Eurasians exclusively of European females stranded on African territory, with negligible to no male presence, not even male kids?..
Another whimsical assumption, despite the fact that I had already described the likely scenario to you.
and conversely, wandering east African E-M81 carriers with no accompanying women of their own whatsoever?
Hardly unusual, just as the invading Spanish conquistadors brought no women with them, or closer to home, the Arabs who invaded North Africa..though I believe that U6 carriers were likely among E-m81 folk.
Can't you see that your undocumented speculation is by far more fantastic and highly improbable than the accounting by the documented historic slavery in the Maghreb, which you have relegated to insignificance despite facts?
And here you segue into your badly constructed straw man.
I've also asked you to tell us where the ancestral Tamazight speakers came from, if they were not "black Africans" from within Africa; not surprisingly, you never followed through.
And if you really read my previous post you would see that I did. Lets go over it again. According to the general consensus proto Berber developed in East Africa from where it spread to North Africa. Where they Black African? Likely however as is the tendency with many Afroasiatic speakers in East Africa, they may have already had some "Mediterranean traits". And then they mixed with Eurasians and a new breed was born.
I haven't already heard how "black Riffians" came to be in the Rif mountains, what language they spoke before they arrived, when they arrived, under what circumstance, and according to what contemporaneous written records. I assume you have, and accordingly, I await your reply.
Let me add some persepctive then.
"The term Gnawa has three important meanings. First, it refers to black people who were enslaved in West Africa. It is commonly believed that Gnawa of Morocco were originally black slaves and who over time had become free under various historical circumstances. Historians believe that the Gnawa population originated from black West Africa - from Senegal to Chad and from Mali in the north to Nigeria in the south. Many of these enslaved people are thought to come from Old Ghana (a kingdom north of Mali) in the 11th through the 13th century. These enslaved groups were called “Gnawa.” There is also some historical evidence that a large enslaved population came from the great market of Djenne in Mali, and that Gnawi is a slight deformation of Jennawi. The term Gnawa is thus a color designation. It historically means “the black people.” Not all blacks in Morocco were slaves that originated from black West Africa. Some blacks were actually native to southern Morocco. Some sources suggest that groups of black people were indigenous of the Draa valley. They were sedentary agriculturists. With the advance of the Romans into the Moroccan interior in the 3rd century B.C.E., the Berbers, who inhabited the coastal areas of the Maghreb of North Africa, may have been forced to move towards the south and competed with the blacks inhabitants in the oases of the Draa, entering into an interdependent or clientele relationship with the Blacks, with the Berbers assuming the patron role.
Etymologically speaking, the meaning of Gnawa likely derives from the Berber word aguinaw, which is connected with skin color. It means “black man” in contrast with the white Berber. This word could be itself the origin of the name Guinea because akal n-iguinamen in Berber means the “land of the black men” just like the Arabic term bilad as-sudan, which means, “land of the black people.” The term was also adopted by the Portuguese and appeared mainly as “Guinea” on European maps dating from the 14th century." http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=2300344&jid=AFH&volumeId=49&issueId=02&aid=2300336
If I had bet in that direction, I would have lost my last dollar on the bet based on photographic record. Is that your intended point?
No, based on the current demographic.
Exactly. Your assumption is premised on emotional thinking, not on any specific document. It's unheard of, because the premise of your assumption is a fairytale to begin with.
No it is based on historical precedent. Show me a documentd historical precedent for the scenario you are intimating.
In the meantime: What then do you do with female slaves, which the bulk of Maghrebi slaves were, if not primarily for gratification? Give me your best guess.
The majority were not females. Males were in high demand as they were used for hard labor, in the field and galley and as soldiers. And as for the females you send them off to the highest bidder.
So in the end, even your own theory is essentially implying something like slavery took place, to account for the European maternal intrusion in Maghrebi gene pool, only at a different time, and one that is undocumented. Which is better: your undocumented speculation, or an explanation premised on documented history?
Very perceptive of you to notice the similarities. However my scenario is more realistic and supported by genetic data which calculates certain eurasian mtdna like H to have arrived in North Africa sometime around the last glacial maximum etc. While you on the other hand, can only produce documents that indicate simply that slavery was practiced. But you cannot produce anything that would prove that riffians living in remote mountain villages are descandants of slaves. Morevoer, the record shows that slaves were to be found in the larger cities where they were put to good use. Also as in the case with the Gnawa and Haratin as mentioned above, being a descendatnt of slaves is not something that is easliy overlooked in Moroccan society. If these Berbers were infact descendant of slaves this should be part of popular lore just as with many of the Blacks. Btw, I neglected to mention that they were just as many Black slaves circulating around Morocco during the period in question, and this should figure into our querry. Yet as we already know, L markers are scarce among the Riffians in mountain villages. Perhaps this says something about the prevalence of slaves in these areas.
We are talking about your silly claim that tectonic plates are subjective
A claim I never made. I said that the geographical entities such as Europe and Africa are arbitrarily drawn and their boundries therefore subjective. And speaking of the latter, the continent of Africa does not usually include the Sinai Penisinsula. See map below.
At any rate, I imagine a barrier would be created on the Sinai border
A very moot point, indeed.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I have not made a definite claim that they are Tamazight speakers; I just don't know.
Fine. we'll leave it at that then.
Here is something you might find interesting. the recent discovery of an ancient culture in the South West Sahara
"Elena A. A. Garcea, an archaeologist at the University of Cassino in Italy, identified ceramics with wavy lines and zigzag patterns as Kiffian, a culture associated with northern Africa. Pots bearing a pointillistic pattern were linked to the Tenerians, a people named for the Ténéré Desert, a stretch of the Sahara known to Tuareg nomads as a “desert within a desert.”
Christopher M. Stojanowski, an archaeologist at Arizona State University, said the two cultures were “biologically distinct groups.” The bones and teeth showed that in contrast to the robust Kiffians, the Tenerians were typically short and lean and apparently led less rigorous lives. Perhaps, Dr. Stojanowski said, they had developed more advanced hunting technologies for taking smaller fish and game.
The shapes of the Tenerian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people not other groups from the southern Sahara." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/926467/1/
Tell me it ain't so. You are not equating any of these with the Tammahou, are you? If so, according to what evidence?
Not necesarily. But the suggestion is that Eurasian types may have a longer history in North Africa than you would like to imagine.
And now I'm going to get some lunch!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ]No, lying moron. The picture is a New Kingdom depiction of Libyans. Just because light-skinned Libyans did not appear until the late Middle Kingdom
So your assumption is when light skinned Libyans first appear in Egyptian art means that that is when they appeared in Libya. This is what you ASS-ume
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
And again light or fair-skinned Libyans did not appear until late Middle Kingdom times. Before this, ALL Libyans were portrayed as dark as the Egpytians themselves i.e. BLACK.
where let's see it
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: the reddish "tanned" complexion as you put it is merely faded paint as anyone with eyes can see darker traces of original complexion around the face while even the black hair is faded.
you say the same lame bullsyht evert time "the paint's faded".
And how do you know to what extent some paint faded. Are you an art expert? Did you run chemical tests on the pigment? Stop the BS. You do the same thing every time. You look for some darker piece somewhere on given item and ASS-ume that that is a remnant of the original color. For example I busted you on seated scribe. He had a layer of wax on him and wax picks up dirt and the most dirt is going to be lowest by the floor at the legs.
And anybody of a certain level of darkness is therefore black? So even if the paint is faded in some cases it proves absolutely nothing.
____________________________________________
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course NON of them are black to me or anyone, but that is irrelevant because again the picture I showed shows the paint has faded so trying to match the complexion is useless.
What is irrelevant is what you are saying. The person in the picture above you say is not black.
yet he has skin as dark as people you would consider black. Therefore your bit about how dark this or that painting is irrelevant.
Case in point somebody you would call "black"
yet Ludacris is lighter than the above Greek fisherman you said was not black.
Therefore you're just another spammer BSing about what is dark and what is light and what is "black" and not black
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: So your assumption is when light skinned Libyans first appear in Egyptian art means that that is when they appeared in Libya. This is what you ASS-ume
Uh, NO! Where did I ever say such??! YOU seem to have a bad habit of assuming people said things that they haven't.
quote:where let's see it
This was posted before in several other threads on the topic. The historian Oric Bates has claimed this and one poster has actually shown old photos of black Libyans from the Old Kingdom. If you doubt all this, YOUR problem not ours.
quote: you say the same lame bullsyht evert time "the paint's faded".
What I say is NOT bullshyt at all! The paint IS faded. Anyone with eyes can see that the color is uneven and lighter with darker traces remaining. If you've seen enough ancient Egyptian colored art, you would know that.
quote:And how do you know to what extent some paint faded. Are you an art expert? Did you run chemical tests on the pigment? Stop the BS. You do the same thing every time. You look for some darker piece somewhere on given item and ASS-ume that that is a remnant of the original color. For example I busted you on seated scribe. He had a layer of wax on him and wax picks up dirt and the most dirt is going to be lowest by the floor at the legs.
LOL Again one does not need to be an expert to see that paint from a 3 millennia old portrait has faded. The only one spreading BS around here is YOU because you cannot accept the simple fact that blacks are aboriginal to North Africa also and not just south of the Sahara which didn't always exist, you dumb twit.
quote:And anybody of a certain level of darkness is therefore black? So even if the paint is faded in some cases it proves absolutely nothing.
No. Again putting words in my mouth. You know just as well as everyone else how dark a complexion entails black. A tanned white man with some ruddiness is not black! Again, the only one spreading b.s. is YOU!
quote:What is irrelevant is what you are saying. The person in the picture above you say is not black. yet he has skin as dark as people you would consider black. Therefore your bit about how dark this or that painting is irrelevant.
LOL What is irrelevant is the donkey excrement you just wrote. The tanned guy is NOT nor would he EVER be considered "black". Having skin darker than pale is not black, and you know it!
quote:Case in point somebody you would call "black"
yet Ludacris is lighter than the above Greek fisherman you said was not black.
Therefore you're just another spammer BSing about what is dark and what is light and what is "black" and not black
More B.S. Neither the tanned white guy or an African American like Ludicris CANNOT change the FACT that the original Libyans were darker than both!!
Funny how you didn't say anything about these actual Libyans above. Are these people black or not??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Earth to Lyingass. Your nonsense is just that-- nonsense. Whatever seeds of doubt and discontent you have tried to sow in this board, it ain't working. So take your virtual black-faced ass back to your boss Mathilda and admit that you failed. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
No. Again putting words in my mouth. You know just as well as everyone else how dark a complexion entails black. A tanned white man with some ruddiness is not black! Again, the only one spreading b.s. is YOU!
It doesn't matter what term you use like "tanned white man"
The man above is the same color as thousands of paintings in good condition of ancient Egyptians and many have a reddish brown brick type color. Some paintings are darker, chocolate brown and others lighter yellowish. Does this mean that the Egyptians were Mediterranean or part Mediterranean? Not necessarily
what it means is that you can't use your typical dark = black, paint faded assumptions as proofs.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I don't think this is correct. Gnawa is either from a word in the Bambara's language borrowed by Berber speakers or else it derives from some Berber word connoting foreigner and not able to make one's self understood (in either Berber or Arabic languages of North Africa).
quote:Pa : Mohamed Chafik, membre de l’académie du royaume du Maroc.
Comme tout un chacun sait, le mot "Barbaros" désignait chez les Grecs tout non-grec, fut-il civilisé. Il a eu son équivalent en arabe, et en berbère, à savoir "ÚÌãíø", nom d'unité du collectif "ÚÌã", d'une part, et "agnaw", d'autre part, dont le pluriel "ignawen" a donné "gnawa" dans l'arabe parlé marocain.
The Berber word for black is abershane. In Tamasheq gănnăw means to be silent. For Kabylies unintelligible language is tagnawit.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Etymologically speaking, the meaning of Gnawa likely derives from the Berber word aguinaw, which is connected with skin color.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Records show slaves being brought to slave markets in major cities.
You are selectively picking what facts to publicly accept and which ones to act ignorant of. That's not how facts work. Facts do not need your approval, nor can they be erased by your selective awareness. Give me the comprehensive *list of all* Maghrebi territories 1)implicated in and affected by the historic slave piracy, and 2)those NOT affected by it. Then 3)give me a detailed list of primary texts from the era that corroborate your list of the affected and unaffected Maghrebi territories, as well as the 4) stats that back up these records.
Your choice of which facts to approve of and which ones not to approve of, carries no value to me.
quote:
Normally Islam was spread by the sword, but aside from that Rif is still spoken by 4 million people. In contrast in most other parts of the country, Arabic and arabic customs hold sway. The reason is obviously because of the greater historical influx of Arabs and foreigners in thses areas. That is not to say that Riffs are totally pure as you accuse me of claiming, but that they have expereinced much less cultural intrusion than many others which has alllowed them to maintain their languages and customs to an appreciable degree.
Your rambling about Riffian cultural conservatism simply makes no sense, and especially the bit about Islam being spread by the sword. That is not enough to make communities adopt Islam generations upon generations. Again, the fact that the majority of these folks are Muslims, shoots a gaping hole in your "they be untouched by Arabs". They are not unique in either the Maghreb or the rest of Africa when it comes to cultural conservatism. So you have no point, nor do you make any sense, by carelessly latching on to this non-issue. It simply doesn't do your dogma any good; wise up and just let it go.
quote:
No, I suppose they were kept hidden in a handful of mountain hamlets instead. Records show that European slaves were shipped all around the Islamic world, many to Instanbul and some as far as Iran.
Give me the primary records of the era that inform us that the Maghrebi slaves vacated the region in millions, the specific numbers and which numbers correspond to which specific destination, when and under what conditions or circumstances. This is the first time ever, I've heard Maghrebi slaves have emptied the Maghreb and vacated to elsewhere.
quote: And you constantly refer to Riffians as coastal people which is conventiently misleading.
That's because the Rif is situated near the coast. It is only misleading to people who don't know what Africa, let alone the Maghreb, looks like. These are the same clique who mistake Sinai for the Levant.
quote:
"Riffians" or "Rif Berbers" are a tribe of Amazigh in Northern Morocco. They are considered tough and hardened people because they live in an extremely uninviting environment in the Rif Mountains. This area of land is located in the northwestern portion of Africa. It consists of deserts, mountains, and rolling fields."
Living in the mountians is an important factor here for obvious reasons.
The purpose of your citation is just useless, as records implicate the Riffians as among the Maghrebi involved in slave piracy. You can toss and turn however ways you want, but that truth simply does not go away. It busts your desire to sanitize Riffians from slavery. You even got your caricatures of Riffians wrong, as photographs have demonstrated. They are not synonymous with lily white folks.
quote:
An ineviatble conclusion if their current phenotype is a result of the importation of White slaves as you seem to believe.
How can that be an "inevitable conclusion" when there is no shred of fact or sense behind it? You are not even capable of succinctly defining terms you use, like "their phenotype", when called out.
quote:
I don't know that I said non existent, perhaps I was as refering to the Sub saharan phenotype among Riffians.
Not it's not that [rather: talking about local maternal lineages, which you presented as non-existent], but even that turned out to be a fairytale, as proven by photos.
quote: But the fact is Eurasian mtdna represents the great majority.
Your listening skills are also not fully developed. How do you get a majority of something out of only a small and highly fragmented sampling of the large piece? How do you get any idea of a larger thing, if you always sample the same small element of it? This is what Cherni et al. sought to educate you about, as I noted a post ago.
quote: And U is basically Eurasian as well. For the record Riffians also have some of the highest R Y-dna frequencies found among any other Berber group.
U6 is not Eurasian. I defy you to prove otherwise. Give me the stats of Riffian Y-DNA segments. Does hg R, which is generally minuscule to non-existent in the Maghreb and coastal north Africa as a whole, trump either hg J or hg E? If not, then what's your point?
quote: And yet I never said anything of the sort, nor have I implied it. Your biased assumptions tend to get the better of your judgement apparently.
Wishful thinking; of course you did. You simply made the claim that the Maghrebi populations arrived from across the Mediterranean sea; you made no mention of the fact that the male gene pool is overwhelmingly hg E and of local origin. Hence, by omission, you were hoping to deceive the clueless. Only that didn't work here, because you are dealing with someone who is more educated about the region than you are.
quote:
Another whimsical assumption, despite the fact that I had already described the likely scenario to you.
Well, your scenario was described only after you were pressed for clarification. And even then, your "likely scenario" insinuates that the African "invaders", as you call them ( LOL), must have killed off even the European male kids, because that is the only way European male lineages could virtually be non-exist or minuscule in contrast to the European female counterparts. That is the only way your "scenario" can make any remote sense. The disparity between the European male and female input in Maghrebi gene pool only makes sense under conditions of a slavery institution that involved mainly females. There are already records of this, but you prefer to relegate them to a non-issue matter, even though your own scenario ultimately implies the very same thing.
quote:
Hardly unusual, just as the invading Spanish conquistadors brought no women with them, or closer to home, the Arabs who invaded North Africa..though I believe that U6 carriers were likely among E-m81 folk.
The way you think is quite comical. Africans "invading" African territory (LOL), and no females in their area of residence? You are suggesting that these Africans, still on African soil, abandoned their original area of residence, wives and kids, for good/forever, then started families with widows of foreigners/Europeans they massacred, and yet you find nothing unusual about that?
Do you honestly think this dopey story has a higher probability ratio than the explanation by way of record of slavery in the historic era?
quote:
And here you segue into your badly constructed straw man.
Your "scenario" is just an imaginative theory that has no material backing whatsoever. You have no logical reason behind painting Africans as "invaders" on African territory, as opposed to any European immigrants. You have no evidence that a prehistoric "European" community of males was massacred. You have no evidence that African invaders abandoned their own wives and kids, just to start anew with European widows whose husbands and male kids they massacred. You have no documented circumstance to offer, that would trigger these events. And lastly, even your own scenario comes back to full circle with "slavery" as the viable explanation of the pattern of European input, lopsidedly female, in the Maghrebi gene pool.
quote:
And if you really read my previous post you would see that I did.
Does your post say whether these Africans from within Africa were "black" or "lily white". If not, then you are yet again deceiving about having answered my question, aren't you?
quote: Lets go over it again. According to the general consensus proto Berber developed in East Africa from where it spread to North Africa. Where they Black African? Likely however as is the tendency with many Afroasiatic speakers in East Africa, they may have already had some "Mediterranean traits".
What is "Mediterranean trait". I also asked you this earlier, and here too, you did not report back. If the trait is "Mediterranean", how then can it be in sub-Saharan East Africa as well?
And how does this square with your earlier complaint, insisting that Riffians cannot possibly be black, despite being exposed to photographic evidence, if you agree that these east Africans were "black"?
quote: And then they mixed with Eurasians and a new breed was born.
How is a "new breed born", when the Tamazight speakers essentially speak local language and practice a locally derived culture to some degree or another. What is "European" about Tamazight culture? How is a "new breed born" when Tamazight populations exist that have negligible "European" genetic input, maternally or paternally?
quote:
Let me add some persepctive then.
"The term Gnawa has three important meanings. First, it refers to black people who were enslaved in West Africa. It is commonly believed that Gnawa of Morocco were originally black slaves and who over time had become free under various historical circumstances. Historians believe that the Gnawa population originated from black West Africa - from Senegal to Chad and from Mali in the north to Nigeria in the south....
It is a pity that your long winded rambling about the "Gnawa/slaves", as you were forewarned, does not answer this:
How "black Riffians" came to be in the Rif mountains, what language they spoke before they arrived, when they arrived, under what circumstance, and according to what contemporaneous written records.
Care to actually answer next round? Or concede that you know not what you are talking about, but just expressing wishful thinking? I will not tolerate anything short of *specific* answers, as questioned.
quote:
No, based on the current demographic.
Why would photographic evidence of Black Riffians, including slave pirates, be trumped by "current demographic"? This is almost like saying "current demographic" in north America trumps the existence of the earlier "native Americans"; do you not find anything strange about that logic?
quote:
No it is based on historical precedent. Show me a documentd historical precedent for the scenario you are intimating.
You are suffering from Alzheimer's. You are now denying even the historic slave trade in the Maghreb altogether, LOL? No, my friend; where is documented record of your speculations about the prehistoric events you are intimating. It has no "historical precedence" in the Maghreb, or elsewhere in Africa for that matter. The ball is in your court.
quote: The majority were not females. Males were in high demand as they were used for hard labor, in the field and galley and as soldiers. And as for the females you send them off to the highest bidder.
We already have plenty of accounts and imagery of European females being traded for gratification purposes, because there are records of it. I've seen none, with regards to European males. Genetics seems to support this as well, since the bulk of European input in Maghrebi gene pool happens to be female. Where is your record that male slaves were a majority in the Maghreb? Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade, where highly muscular and heavy-workload capable Africans were on demand, the only good European males could possibly have for the Maghrebi, was ransom. Give me the documents and the stats that support the idea that European males were in the majority of European slaves. Also give me primary records of what happened to these elusive European males in the Maghreb.
quote:
Very perceptive of you to notice the similarities.
You'd have to be a total knucklehead not to see the ultimate conclusion of your speculation. Widows of massacred European males being screwed by "African invaders" on "African territory". If those widows don't amount to slaves, then what else could they be? Tell me you are not slow enough to have not caught onto this element in your speculation?
quote: However my scenario is more realistic and supported by genetic data which calculates certain eurasian mtdna like H to have arrived in North Africa sometime around the last glacial maximum etc.
Entertain me on how your storytelling about "African invaders" massacring European males and starting families with their widows, while abandoning their own wives and kids forever, is more realistic than the documented slave history in the Maghreb, LOL?
quote: While you on the other hand, can only produce documents that indicate simply that slavery was practiced.
It's much more than that. Female slaves were favored in the Maghreb, and lopsidedly outnumbered male slaves, and it shows genetically. European female input in the coastal Maghrebi gene pool is a lopsided one. The European male contribution is minuscule to nil. Genetic evidence and the documentation fit like a glove. Your uncorroborated storytelling however, is something one is more likely to see in a cartoon than in practical life, don't you agree?
quote: But you cannot produce anything that would prove that riffians living in remote mountain villages are descandants of slaves.
You've been trumped already. Proof in the pudding: Riffians took part in slave piracy. This is as good a proof as it gets.
Ps: And you might not be aware of it, but even you reinforced this, by making note of the fact that a segment of Riffians, who seem lily white and whom you tried to fictitiously pass off as "the-be-all" of Riffians, have more depigmented eye incidences than even the neighboring Iberian populations they were supposed to have hailed from and surrounding European regions. This bespeaks ancestry in slavery, where European women even beyond the Mediterranean-hugging countries were held captive.
quote: Morevoer, the record shows that slaves were to be found in the larger cities where they were put to good use.
This is a figment of your imagination. You have no records to fall back on; rather you are appealing to the audience to "take your word for it". See the very top of this post for requests about documentation/records.
quote: Also as in the case with the Gnawa and Haratin as mentioned above, being a descendatnt of slaves is not something that is easliy overlooked in Moroccan society. If these Berbers were infact descendant of slaves this should be part of popular lore just as with many of the Blacks.
If you were 'white' and a descendant of a 'white' slave, of course you would overlook the fact and instead try to deflect attention to supposed "black" slaves just to legitimize yourself, and "white" people like you, as the natural/authentic "berber". Of course, one only needs to examine the origins of Tamazight language, and characteristic Tamazight lineage, to see that this is nothing more than a fairytale bedtime story. We see even Eurocentrists do this: they try to say any "sub-Saharan" marker in the Maghreb is a product of slavery, yet with all the extensive documentation of European slavery in the Maghreb, perhaps more documented than the "black slaves", we are asked to believe that European genetic input is natural in the Maghreb, and absolutely pure from "slavery". Your post simply tells me that you are suffering from Eurocentric dogma.
quote: Btw, I neglected to mention that they were just as many Black slaves circulating around Morocco during the period in question, and this should figure into our querry.
You know the drill by now: Stats and primary records!
quote: Yet as we already know, L markers are scarce among the Riffians in mountain villages. Perhaps this says something about the prevalence of slaves in these areas.
You were asked to substantiate your allusions to Riffian genetics, yet you give us more storytelling. Let's see how European male input stacks against Arab male and African male input in the Riffians. Riffian samples wouldn't be the only far western Maghreb samples to figure little L markers in contrast to fairly recent Iberian maternal clades. This where the matter of European female slaves kick in; this is what I've been talking about all along--where have you been all this time? This input can have a masking effect on L type markers. Frigi et al. 2010 for instance, raised the issue that recent ancestry from Iberia could contribute to the masking of preexisting local L type markers in segments of Maghrebi population. Cherni et al. on the other hand, ad infinitum, has shown that broad generalizations are made about Maghrebi gene pool based on fairly small and highly fragmented/patchy sampling, as proven by their results which show a far more complex pattern in Maghrebi gene pool, where considerable "sub-Saharan" derived maternal ancestry is a noticeable factor.
quote: We are talking about your silly claim that tectonic plates are subjective
A claim I never made.
You do realize you are actually on record as having said that, since the time you are allowed to edit your posts has long elapsed, LOL?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Not necesarily.
Then posting it in response to me, was a total waste of time, wasn't it.
quote:
But the suggestion is that Eurasian types may have a longer history in North Africa than you would like to imagine.
How long did I imagine that "Eurasians have a history in North Africa"; cite the post you are quoting me on.
Ps: There is a difference between saying a majority of Maghrebi maternal heritage comes from recent historic slave trade and saying that "Eurasians have a so and so length of history in northern Africa". Further, saying that "Eurasians have a long history in north Africa" does not tell us when "European" intrusion [lopsidedly female] into contemporary Maghrebi gene pool came about in prehistory, and how much at the time. Genetic material suggests that a great deal of European ancestry in the Maghreb gene pool is more of a recent phenomenon than prehistoric. Eurocentrists however, as usual, rely on typological folklore anthropology to make connections between European specimens and north African specimens, and speculate about European involvement on the continent; nothing solidly substantial.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
^
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer,
First lets get this out of the way before I forget.
You do realize you are actually on record as having said that, since the time you are allowed to edit your posts has long elapsed, LOL?
Here is where I quoted you with my response.
"nobody argues that. But just because its close, doesn't make it factually part of the Levant."
"And that is all subjective just like the geographical entity called Africa..or Europe...based on arbitrary lines someone drew up. The proximity of the two areas is the only relevant issue."
I was not concerned with tectonic plates but to your claim that it's closeness to the Levant does not matter. For your edification. "The Sinai Peninsula or Sinai (Arabic: سيناء sīnā' ; Hebrew סיני) is a triangular peninsula in Egypt about 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi) in area. It is situated between the Mediterranean Sea to the north, and the Red Sea to the south, and it is the only part of Egyptian territory located in Asia as opposed to Africa" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula
And this is starting to seem a waste of time especially with the increasingly frantic tone of your posts.. turning this into yet another pissing contest. Plus you are hell bent on maintaining a Black North Africa as near to the present as possible.
Give me the comprehensive *list of all* Maghrebi territories 1)implicated in and affected by the historic slave piracy, and 2)those NOT affected by it. Then 3)give me a detailed list of primary texts from the era that corroborate your list of the affected and unaffected Maghrebi territories, as well as the 4) stats that back up these records
A desperate attempt to invalidate my claims. But it doesn't work. I don't need to go back and find some dusty documents dating from the 1600's, do I? Lol! What I claim is basically common knowledge and can be found in any account of White slavery in North Africa.
"The Barbary Coast, which extends from Morocco through modern Libya, was home to a thriving man-catching industry from about 1500 to 1800. The great slaving capitals were Salé in Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. They often made raids, called Razzias, on European coastal towns to capture Christian slaves to sell at slave markets in places such as Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Algeria and Morocco... Ships were therefore the primary source of white slaves... A good-sized merchantman might yield 20 or so sailors healthy enough to last a few years in the galleys, and passengers were usually good for a ransom... Public slaves also contributed to a fund to support bagnio priests.. If a slaving party had already snatched so many men it had no more room below deck, it might raid a town and then reappear a few days later to sell captives back to their families For example, records suggest that from 1580 to 1680 there was an average of some 35,000 slaves in Barbary. There was a steady loss through death and redemption, so if the population stayed level, the rate at which raiders captured new slaves must have equaled the rate of attrition. There are good bases for estimating death rates. For example, it is known that of the nearly 400 Icelanders caught in 1627, there were only 70 survivors eight years later. In addition to malnutrition, overcrowding, overwork, and brutal punishment, slaves faced epidemics of plague, which usually wiped out 20 to 30 percent of the white slaves. "http://www.expat-blog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=55991. http://www.sunray22b.net/untold_story_of_white_slavery.htm
Again, the fact that the majority of these folks are Muslims, shoots a gaping hole in your "they be untouched by Arabs
I didn't say they there were "untouched". That's you trying to build another straw man. And I suppose that the fact they were able to preserve their language and culture doesn't tell us something about the level of Arabic influence that bore upon them, and is not significant. Yeah we'll go with your special brand of logic then and just drop the whole thing.
The purpose of your citation is just useless, as records implicate the Riffians as among the Maghrebi involved in slave piracy
But the general pattern is that slaves were taken to the major slave markets for a profit. That is what the Riffians would have done. That is documented. Not taking them to remote mountain villages. Of course some could have but where is the record of it, as you ae so fond of asking??
How can that be an "inevitable conclusion" when there is no shred of fact or sense behind it?
Is it not your position that current phenotype is the result of recent European slaves? And is not the majority mtdna Eurasian? Do you even understand the implications of your argument? And the current phenotype is this..
And as far as your so called photographic evidence you keep harping on, all you presented were two drawings and one obsucure photgraph where we really can't tell what race the folks are. However if its an actual photo, it had to be taken certianly no earlier than 1865 and likely later. Therefore if those supposed riffians were Black, they have had only three or four generations to acquire the phenotype they have Today. And may I remind you that Barabry piracy ended in the 1830's! Not very astute are you?
talking about local maternal lineages, which you presented as non-existent], but even that turned out to be a fairytale, as proven by photos.
Local maternal lineages proven by photos???? Is that what you really wanted to say? Maybe a typo?
U6 is not Eurasian. I defy you to prove otherwise *Sigh. "U6, a maternal haplotype which originated in western Asia some 30,000 ago is very important ... The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib [see "Maghreb" ] returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent, citing the following website" http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/4/15
Does hg R, which is generally minuscule to non-existent in the Maghreb and coastal north Africa as a whole, trump either hg J or hg E? If not, then what's your point?
Yeah but R reahces it's highest frequency in the Riffian region..isolated region, low arabic influence.. get it? I guess a few of the Eurasians males managed to survive after all.
The disparity between the European male and female input in Maghrebi gene pool only makes sense under conditions of a slavery institution that involved mainly females
How you ever considered the gene pool in many Latin American countries where Mtdna is largely native and Y-dna is European? Do you understand how invasions work??
Does your post say whether these Africans from within Africa were "black" or "lily white".
Lilly White?? Give me a break.
Here a somali Man..with Med traits. I imagine the proto berber speakers may have started out like him. (probaly proto Egyptians too). They probably became lighter as they mixed with U6 and then other Eurasian types.
Africans "invading" African territory (LOL), and no females in their area of residence? You are suggesting that these Africans, still on African soil, abandoned their original area of residence
A very bizarre way of thinking. So by your way of reasoning if a group of Africans from East Africa migrate Westward and take over the territory from the previous inhabitants, that is not an invasion because they are still AFRICANS in AFRICA???? Whew! I need a beer!
Well Explorer, if they came to the coasts of the Maghreb and conquered the Eurasians there then yes, that is an invasion. Any way you want to slice it. And young warriors who go about conquering territory usually do not bring their wife and children. In fact many may not even have a mate and are spurred on by the prospect of what they might capture.
African invaders" on "African territory". If those widows don't amount to slaves, then what else could they be? Tell me you are not slow enough to have not caught onto this element in your speculation?
Are you slow enough to beleive that my focus in on avoiding the possibilty of slavery? Lol! If they took the womens as wives, concubines or whatever that doesn't necessarily make them slaves. But that is not important. The main point that we are arguing about, if I'm not mistaken, is whether Eurasians in North Africa predate historical times. The implications this has on the race of the Moors, the Carthiginians are substantial as I am sure you are aware. If it helps you to sleep better at night to think they were slaves even in prehistoric times, then have at. This does not affect my arguement in any signifiacnt way. And wandering brown skinned (med looking) males who arrive in a new territory mixing with the locals becoming lighter over centuries makes way more sense then your scenario where you have Black Sub Saharan Riifians in the 1800's turn fair skinned and blond in about three or four or generations. Yeah I know using the term blond is the extreme, but you get the point.
How "black Riffians" came to be in the Rif mountains, what language they spoke before they arrived, when they arrived, under what circumstance, and according to what contemporaneous written records.
And the only indication you have of Black Riffians are two drawings. Those were priates who operated along the coast. There is nothing which suggests they lived in the Rif maountains. If they were Blacks according to the evidence they were likely sub saharan Blacks employed to capture slaves by Arab traders. Because I can find no corroborating evidence that Blacks were in the Rif area except for some quetionable drawings from an a blatantly afrocentirc Rastafarian site. Something we should add to the equation is that the French and Spanish pretty much took over the Maghreb in the 1830's. and they were both heavily involved in exporting Black slaves to the Americas. Why didn't they just capture slaves from the North coast of Africa and save time and money rather than sailing all the way around the African coats to the Bight of Benin??
And you might not be aware of it, but even you reinforced this, by making note of the fact that a segment of Riffians, who seem lily white and whom you tried to fictitiously pass off as "the-be-all" of Riffians, have more depigmented eye incidences than even the neighboring Iberian populations they were supposed to have hailed from and surrounding European regions. This bespeaks ancestry in slavery, where European women even beyond the Mediterranean-hugging countries were held captive.
Nice try except we are talking about the ancestors of folks who crossed the Meditrranean over 14,000 years ago. What did Iberians look like then? Maybe they simply passed through Iberia from parts further North.
If you were 'white' and a descendant of a 'white' slave, of course you would overlook the fact and instead try to deflect attention to supposed "black" slaves just to legitimize yourself, and "white" people like you, as the natural/authentic "berber".
Dude, Morocco is a country where the folks largely identify as Arabs. Why would they prefer to overlook the European slave history of Berbers over that of Blacks??? They already look down on Berbers.
Not a good argument.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Then posting it in response to me, was a total waste of time, wasn't it.
I just wanted to knock another chip off your stubborn notion that North Africa was always Black. Already it crumbles..
Genetic material suggests that a great deal of European ancestry in the Maghreb gene pool is more of a recent phenomenon than prehistoric.
Uh huh..
Ottoni et al in Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (yes that's Europe) 2010 who states:
"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two other major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1, [11]), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion. Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37]." these H1 sub-clades most likely arose in North Africa after the arrival of the H1 European founder sequence, corresponding to the H1 node in Figure 1...Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago.....Evidence of trans-Mediterranean contacts between Northern Africa and Western Europe has been assessed at the level of different genetic markers.."
"The first large-scale fine characterization of Tunisian H lineages clarifies that the post-Last glacial maximum expansion originating in Iberia not only led to the resettlement of Europe but also of North Africa. We found that 46% of 81 Tunisian H lineages subscreened for 1,580 bp in mtDNA coding region were affiliated with H1 and H3 subhaplogroups, which are known to have originated in Iberia. Although no signs of local expansion were detected, which would allow a clear dating of their introduction, the younger and less diverse Tunisian H1 and H3 lineages indicate Iberia as the radiating centre. Major contributions from historical migrations to this Iberian genetic imprint in Tunisia were ruled out by the mtDNA gene pool similarity between Berber/Arab/cosmopolitan samples and some "Andalusian" communities, settled by the descendents of the "Moors" who once lived in Iberia for 10 centuries (between 8th and 17th centuries), before being expelled to Tunisia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19090581
"Achilli et al: Saami and Berbers - An Unexpected Mitochondrial DNA Link (03/2005). This reports that the Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of North Africa share an extremely young branch "aged merely ~9,000 years" and this finding confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area of south-western Europe was the source of late-glacial expansions of hunter-gatherers that repopulated northern Europe after the last Glacial Maximum, and also reveals a direct maternal link between those hunter-gatherer populations and the Berbers"
And just for good measure. Here is the Moorish Amabasdor to Queen Elizabeth I 1600 A.D. Look him in the eye and apologize.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Deludedass:
It doesn't matter what term you use like "tanned white man"
The man above is the same color as thousands of paintings in good condition of ancient Egyptians and many have a reddish brown brick type color. Some paintings are darker, chocolate brown and others lighter yellowish. Does this mean that the Egyptians were Mediterranean or part Mediterranean? Not necessarily
what it means is that you can't use your typical dark = black, paint faded assumptions as proofs.
First of all, you are not only a liar but delusional as well if you think that tanned ruddy guy is the same exact complexion as ancient Egyptians let alone King Tut!!
Sorry but a tanned or sunburnt man is not the same color as the sard or mahogany type complexions of the ancient Egyptians and their indigenous Libyan neighbors!! As far as "Mediterranean" that is a Sea border by 2 regions-- Africa and Eurasia; 3 regions if count Europe separately from Asia.
Nobody is buying your horse manure, so best sell it elsewhere than this forum. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
I just wanted to knock another chip off your stubborn notion that North Africa was always Black. Already it crumbles..
Precisely my point. You are wasting your time and energy posting nonsense that has no link whatsoever to what's actually being said.
quote:
Uh huh..
Ottoni et al in Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (yes that's Europe) 2010 who states:
"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two other major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1, [11]), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion. Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37]." these H1 sub-clades most likely arose in North Africa after the arrival of the H1 European founder sequence, corresponding to the H1 node in Figure 1...Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago.....Evidence of trans-Mediterranean contacts between Northern Africa and Western Europe has been assessed at the level of different genetic markers.."
"The first large-scale fine characterization of Tunisian H lineages clarifies that the post-Last glacial maximum expansion originating in Iberia not only led to the resettlement of Europe but also of North Africa. We found that 46% of 81 Tunisian H lineages subscreened for 1,580 bp in mtDNA coding region were affiliated with H1 and H3 subhaplogroups, which are known to have originated in Iberia. Although no signs of local expansion were detected, which would allow a clear dating of their introduction, the younger and less diverse Tunisian H1 and H3 lineages indicate Iberia as the radiating centre. Major contributions from historical migrations to this Iberian genetic imprint in Tunisia were ruled out by the mtDNA gene pool similarity between Berber/Arab/cosmopolitan samples and some "Andalusian" communities, settled by the descendents of the "Moors" who once lived in Iberia for 10 centuries (between 8th and 17th centuries), before being expelled to Tunisia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19090581
This is beginning to become a pattern. You deny things, only to proceed vindicating me. Your citation points out that the Maghrebi examples and Iberian clades are indistinguishable, as indicated by their determination that there was "no signs of local expansions", and to top that, the younger and less diverse subclades of the Tunisian H markers. This reinforces my point about a recent intrusion of these clades. The bit about ruling out major contributions of historic migrations to Tunisia on the account of similarities between the "Andalusian" communities and those in the Magbreb cosmopolitan samples makes no sense, since the "Moors" would have been in the very region, where the H clades were supposed to have emanated. Slaves brought to the Maghreb would have carried similar H clades. Likewise, Andulasian communities are expected to show African ancestry via the "Moors", because quite simply, the "Moors" were there. LOL
quote:
And just for good measure. Here is the Moorish Amabasdor to Queen Elizabeth I 1600 A.D. Look him in the eye and apologize.
Remind me what I'm supposed to be "apologizing" for? As for looking him in the eye, I believe this guy is dead!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Explorer,
First lets get this out of the way before I forget.
You do realize you are actually on record as having said that, since the time you are allowed to edit your posts has long elapsed, LOL?
Here is where I quoted you with my response.
"nobody argues that. But just because its close, doesn't make it factually part of the Levant."
"And that is all subjective just like the geographical entity called Africa..or Europe...based on arbitrary lines someone drew up. The proximity of the two areas is the only relevant issue."
I was not concerned with tectonic plates but to your claim that it's closeness to the Levant does not matter.
You are deceiving yet again. You are lying even as you cite me, which is self-defeating: You just quoted me saying that "Sinai's being close to the Levant doesn't make it a part of the Levant". How does this equal "it's closeness to the Levant does not matter"?
You are simply on damage control mode, because even your claim that "Africa is arbitrary" exposes the fact that you were indeed saying that "tectonic plates are subjective". You should only try deceiving, if you are very good at it.
quote: For your edification. "The Sinai Peninsula or Sinai (Arabic: سيناء sīnā' ; Hebrew סיני) is a triangular peninsula in Egypt about 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi) in area. It is situated between the Mediterranean Sea to the north, and the Red Sea to the south, and it is the only part of Egyptian territory located in Asia as opposed to Africa" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_Peninsula
Wow, you just cited the infallible Wiki. Props to you, LOL. The nut who wrote that apparently has never heard of tectonic plates, let alone the geological facets of Sinai.
quote: And this is starting to seem a waste of time especially with the increasingly frantic tone of your posts.. turning this into yet another pissing contest. Plus you are hell bent on maintaining a Black North Africa as near to the present as possible.
Being worn down by facts, are we? My tone has in fact remain fairly consistent. If anything, I've actually applied a good degree of self-restraint on not having colorfully called out your intellect-free posts as numerously as they well deserved, simply for the sake of keeping the tone of the exchange as mellow as possible. I figure because you have generally been somewhat civil in your posts--despite the very frequent intellectual shortcomings of these posts, that being brutally honest and calling them out as such for every occasion they occur, might spoil the flow of the exchange. Just be real, and say you are looking for a way out.
quote:
A desperate attempt to invalidate my claims. But it doesn't work. I don't need to go back and find some dusty documents dating from the 1600's, do I? Lol! What I claim is basically common knowledge and can be found in any account of White slavery in North Africa.
In other words, your post has no empirical foundation.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:
I didn't say they there were "untouched". That's you trying to build another straw man. And I suppose that the fact they were able to preserve their language and culture doesn't tell us something about the level of Arabic influence that bore upon them, and is not significant. Yeah we'll go with your special brand of logic then and just drop the whole thing.
LOL, you are not familiar with a strawman. You did offer to use "cultural conservatism" as a crutch to say that the Riffians were not influenced by Arabs, and that as such, they would have been spared the effects of piracy in human trafficking. However, this myth is busted wide open by the fact that the majority of these folks are Muslims. They'd have to have been influenced by Arabs to become Muslims. You also attempted to use their residency in the mountains to say that they couldn't be influenced, yet apparently, that issue hadn't stopped Arab influence from reaching them. And even further, it hadn't stopped Riffians from taking part in slave piracy. It seems to me that you are simply seeking an avenue to disown your words.
quote:
But the general pattern is that slaves were taken to the major slave markets for a profit. That is what the Riffians would have done. That is documented. Not taking them to remote mountain villages. Of course some could have but where is the record of it, as you ae so fond of asking??
That they would take them to slave markets, is a given. What is not a given, is your uncorroboratedsupposition that such a market(s) never existed in the Rif itself, in the face of the fact that pirates involved in slavery had come from this very region. As a person not familiar with Africa, you might not know this, but people you might consider "too poor" to do anything, may well be in a position to do things you dismiss them off. Like for instance, you might prejudge that many people are "too poor" and hence, not in a position to afford many wives and so many children. Yet, it is quite common to see these same "poor-looking" people in Africa have a multitude of wives, and a number of children that only rich people can dream of in the "west". You are not even looking at the time frame and/or context of piracy. Slaves could just as well be traded for "goods" rather than outright currency...like say, if someone were to offer the slave trader so and so number of sheep, goat, produce or what have you, in exchange for a slave.
You lament about the whereabouts of a record, but the record had already been straightened several posts ago, that Riffians had in fact been involved in slavery. Hence, I'm on much stronger grounds than you are, as far as record goes. Genetics only serves to reinforce this.
quote:
Is it not your position that current phenotype is the result of recent European slaves? And is not the majority mtdna Eurasian? Do you even understand the implications of your argument? And the current phenotype is this..
This has been my position: A good majority of European mtDNA in the Maghreb is very likely attributable to the slave trade, because 1)many of the Maghrebi mtDNA clusters thereof are virtually indistinguishable from the Iberian examples--meaning, the time depth of the contribution must not have been considerable, or else one would have seen more divergent Maghrebi clades than currently the case, 2)the slave trade of European females is documented history, which should readily explain 3)why European genetic contribution in the Maghreb also happens to be lopsidedly "female", and 4)why there is noticeable asymmetry in Maghrebi gene pool, with the male gene pool overwhelmingly African, in clear contrast to the mtDNA pattern in segments of Maghrebi gene pool.
As far as looks go, that has always been your end of the argument, not mine, so as to say that European slavery could not have been an overriding factor in European ancestry in the Maghreb. It was you, who felt compelled to use some lily white looking individual, with blond hair and depigmented eyes, as the poster-child of Riffians...which in any case, is not the epitome Maghrebi "Berber" look that you make it out to be, since most "light-skinned" Maghrebi folks look tawny to light brown in color. And it was also you, who made the case that Maghrebi populations could never have descended from "black Africans".
I'm aware that "light-skin" in the Maghreb could have come from invasions from the "Near East" [remember the Punic presence in the region, for example?], as explained by hg J in the male gene pool. Better luck next time in trying to distort my position in this argument, LOL.
quote: And as far as your so called photographic evidence you keep harping on, all you presented were two drawings and one obsucure photgraph where we really can't tell what race the folks are. However if its an actual photo, it had to be taken certianly no earlier than 1865 and likely later.
Only you have a problem telling a dark-skin person from a "white" person even in black and white photographs. The drawings come from a European source, which as we know, were not exactly Afrocentric, kind to "black Africans", nor keen about any narrative of "blacks" in north Africa. So yes, that makes even the drawings significant. You tried to pin the drawings on a "black" artist, just so you could discredit them as "Afrocentric" conspiracies, but we all know that that didn't turn out quite like you wanted it to. As for the dating issue, you are again relying on your invalidated instincts rather than fact.
quote: Therefore if those supposed riffians were Black, they have had only three or four generations to acquire the phenotype they have Today. And may I remind you that Barabry piracy ended in the 1830's! Not very astute are you?
LOL. It has been demonstrated here numerous times, that it can even take just a single generation for a "black" parent to have a "light-skinned" offspring with a "light-skinned" parent. Heck, it has even been shown that two "black" parents can have a fairly "light-skinned" offspring. So you are on no firm footing here, as you misguidedly seem convinced of.
quote:
Local maternal lineages proven by photos???? Is that what you really wanted to say? Maybe a typo?
Nope; you just misunderstood. I put what I was really referring to in the brackets, and responded to what you were referring to, outside the brackets. In other words, I was referring to your claim that Riffians could not have looked like the figures in the old drawings, despite the fact that the figures were identified by the source as Riffians.
quote:
U6 is not Eurasian. I defy you to prove otherwise *Sigh.
"U6, a maternal haplotype which originated in western Asia some 30,000 ago is very important ... The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib [see "Maghreb" ] returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent, citing the following website" http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/4/15
LOL, I had a feeling you'd just copy & paste old and tried journal extracts. I challenge you to present a U6 sub-clade in the "Near East" that is older than the Maghrebi U6a. Your post is in fact reporting the other way around; that is to say, the oldest U6 clades first moved from the Maghreb and then landed in the "Near East". That only reinforces my point. Additionally, I dare you to show me the "proto-U6" ancestor that supposedly emerged in the "Near East".
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Originally posted by Doctorisscientia over at ESR
The last picture you posted "the so called lighter skinnned man" is of Sultan Ahmad al-Mansur, who's mother was a Fulani concubine.[/quote]
Ooh really so he became Sultan after he became ambassador to Queen Elizabeth..so what then of his father what ethnic back-ground..where did he come from?[/quote]
His father was Mohammed ash-Sheikh, he was of Northern Saharan descent. Basically he was a northern Berber speaker.
His father was also a Sultun.
"Mawlay Mohammed ash-Sheikh ash Sharif al-Hassani al-Drawi at-Tagmadert (died 1557) was the first sultan of the Saadi dynasty ruling over Morocco (1544-1557). Al-Drawi at-Tagmadert means: the man from the Draa river valley, from Tagmadert. "
Place of Origin:Central/Southern Morocco
His mother was most likely from Mauritania or even Southern Morocco, and it's also very possiable that she was more then just a concubine but a noble lady from a more southern empire or kingdom, unidentified in regard to records. Her statues as a noble southern lady would not have crippled her childrens chances of becoming Sultan.
Does hg R, which is generally minuscule to non-existent in the Maghreb and coastal north Africa as a whole, trump either hg J or hg E? If not, then what's your point?
Yeah
Well then there you go; case is closed.
quote: but R reahces it's highest frequency in the Riffian region..isolated region, low arabic influence.. get it? I guess a few of the Eurasians males managed to survive after all.
There is no point in saying "R reaches its highest frequency in the Riffian region" when it is generally minuscule to nil in the Rif and the Maghreb as a whole. My point is precisely this: R is generally minuscule in its distribution in the Maghreb, if not absent altogether. This distribution doesn't support any voluntary European migration into the Maghreb in the prehistoric time frame. Otherwise, one would expect a good degree of symmetry in "European" genetic imprint in the Maghreb. Saying that there is some 4 % or so hg R in a Maghrebi sample is besides the point. Bottom line: The European male genetic imprint is considerably lower than 1)the "European" maternal imprint, 2) the African paternal segment of the gene pool, and even the 3)the Arab segment of the paternal gene pool. What good does it you then, when the "Arab" contribution, which you've sought to diminish in the Riffians, happens to also be greater than the European male contribution? No good at all, that's what!
quote:
How you ever considered the gene pool in many Latin American countries where Mtdna is largely native and Y-dna is European? Do you understand how invasions work??
Have you ever considered that this amounts to slavery, and that Latin America has in fact been affected by slavery? Latin America is not Europe, so it is not anomalous to see discrepancy between Y-DNA and mtDNA patterns. Europeans would have been invaders. Furthermore, you lie about Latin American genetic makeup. It is far more complex than your simplistic guesswork. There is a complex mix of recent African, "native American"/east (central) Asian and European genetic imprint, both Y-DNA and mtDNA. The Maghreb on the other hand, is overwhelmingly of African paternal ancestry, AND in this instance, Africans are NOT invaders; they are THE natives. Your questionable guesswork is therefore a case of mixing apples with oranges.
quote:
Here a somali Man..with Med traits. I imagine the proto berber speakers may have started out like him. (probaly proto Egyptians too). They probably became lighter as they mixed with U6 and then other Eurasian types.
You are simply talking past my posts, and not confronting specifics. You've been repeatedly asked to explain how "Med traits" got to "sub-Saharan" Africa, if they are supposed to be "Med traits". Is it possible that you think the Mediterranean sea goes all the way to "sub-Saharan" east Africa?
quote:
A very bizarre way of thinking.
LOL, tell me about it. This is the way you've been thinking and asking us to take you for a sane person.
quote:
So by your way of reasoning if a group of Africans from East Africa migrate Westward and take over the territory from the previous inhabitants, that is not an invasion because they are still AFRICANS in AFRICA???? Whew! I need a beer!
By that token, you need a brain to help you think. How do people from across the sea outside of the African mainland become more native to Africa than people who had been there all along, while Africans become the "invaders" on African land? And no less, how do you even become the "previous inhabitants" of land that was already inhabited before your arrival?
quote: Well Explorer, if they came to the coasts of the Maghreb and conquered the Eurasians there then yes, that is an invasion. Any way you want to slice it.
And you wonder why your reasoning is bizarre? Case in point: You would be calling them "Africans" rather than "Eurasians", if they belonged there in the first place, and if you actually bought into your own crap about the actual Africans being "invaders" instead of foreigners from overseas, wouldn't you?
quote: And young warriors who go about conquering territory usually do not bring their wife and children. In fact many may not even have a mate and are spurred on by the prospect of what they might capture.
Red herring. The issue is about these so-called "African invaders" leaving their own females and kids behind *for good*, on a land mass they never left to begin with. These are not folks who supposedly crossed oceans to get to new territory. They were still on the continent on which they were born and had families. You asking people to believe that they would have abandoned their preexisting families forever, even though they were supposedly still on the continent and were very capable of getting back to their origin point just as they had left it? Even conquering soldiers from overseas, in most cases, expect to be called back home to revisit their loved ones at some point or another, while being replaced by reinforcements. You are also suggesting that this would have been a case of premeditated conquest, and so, as such, they would have prepared ahead to bring their families upon completion of the conquest. Your reasoning doesn't apply to the modern world, let alone a prehistoric one.
quote:
Are you slow enough to beleive that my focus in on avoiding the possibilty of slavery? Lol!
Not very good with expressing yourself, are you? I believe you meant to say that it would be the smart and logical conclusion to come to...that despite the steep intellectual slope you'd have to climb in defending it, you are actually convinced that your "explanation" precludes slavery. In actuality, it only reinforces the case for slavery, which you've been at pains to deny. If you aren't denying the element of slavery, then what are you fussing about? The time frame of slavery, perhaps?
quote: If they took the womens as wives, concubines or whatever that doesn't necessarily make them slaves.
To educate you, any involuntary captivity of a person is slavery. If somebody took you by force and compelled you to have kids with them, you are asking me to believe that you don't amount to a slave? Let me guess, that makes you a concubine instead of a slave. You are comical.
quote: But that is not important. The main point that we are arguing about, if I'm not mistaken, is whether Eurasians in North Africa predate historical times.
You are mistaken. See preceding posts.
quote: The implications this has on the race of the Moors, the Carthiginians are substantial as I am sure you are aware. If it helps you to sleep better at night to think they were slaves even in prehistoric times, then have at. This does not affect my arguement in any signifiacnt way.
Your argument is deeply disturbed by any prospect of "slavery", since it is the very thing you are trying so hard to deny in the first place.
quote: And wandering brown skinned (med looking) males who arrive in a new territory mixing with the locals becoming lighter over centuries makes way more sense then your scenario where you have Black Sub Saharan Riifians in the 1800's turn fair skinned and blond in about three or four or generations. Yeah I know using the term blond is the extreme, but you get the point.
Hey, even mentally disturb bums who murmur to themselves on the streets seem to think that they make more sense than any body; that doesn't mean that they actually do. To save me the risk of sounding redundant, please refer to an earlier post about this "generational thing" that you are espousing.
quote:
And the only indication you have of Black Riffians are two drawings. Those were priates who operated along the coast. There is nothing which suggests they lived in the Rif maountains.
...plus a photograph--you forgot to mention that bit. But ummm...the drawings were also clearly captioned as depictions of Riffian pirates by the source. That is more than "something" that suggests they were from the Rif, which also happens to be a mountainous region. These images additionally make a lie out of your imaginary caricature of Riffians -- people you seem to know very little about.
quote: If they were Blacks according to the evidence they were likely sub saharan Blacks employed to capture slaves by Arab traders.
LOL, Riffians were unable to do the job, and so, they employed "sub-Saharan blacks" to come in and do their job for them? I doubt you realize just how desperate you are increasingly coming across, and how close you are in edging off the cliff, if not already there.
quote:
Something we should add to the equation is that the French and Spanish pretty much took over the Maghreb in the 1830's. and they were both heavily involved in exporting Black slaves to the Americas. Why didn't they just capture slaves from the North coast of Africa and save time and money rather than sailing all the way around the African coats to the Bight of Benin??
Other than you, who said they haven't?
Have you ever bothered reading a history text book. Europeans bought African slaves through African slave traders; sure, they'd gone even further at times and abducted people, but these happen to be in regions where the slave trade was already an established business. No good comes from an evil enterprise; it just begets more evil. I'm not predisposed to defending slavery, be it African slave traders or European slave traders.
quote:
Nice try except we are talking about the ancestors of folks who crossed the Meditrranean over 14,000 years ago. What did Iberians look like then? Maybe they simply passed through Iberia from parts further North.
If Brace et al. (2005) are anything to go by, southern Europeans looked more like contemporary southern Europeans in contrast to northern Europeans vis-a-vis their prehistoric counterparts, which in essence would seem to negate your blond haired and blue eyed isolated "prehistoric" white "Eurasians" in an inhabited land on the African coast. LOL
quote:
Dude, Morocco is a country where the folks largely identify as Arabs. Why would they prefer to overlook the European slave history of Berbers over that of Blacks??? They already look down on Berbers.
Dude, these are mostly "Arabized" folks, for one -- not literally Arabs! Something must have hit you hard in the head lately, because it seems you have also suddenly forgotten that the "Arabized" Maghrebi were prominent parties in the slave piracy, as opposed to something particular to "Berbers". And you are missing the message being conveyed as usual. The "light-skinned" Maghrebi elements are safeguarding their "light-skin"--not some "Arab" identity, and so, the only way to do that, is to diminish "black Berbers" as the inauthentic. Understand? They would like to nurture the myth that the "light-skinned" Amazigh or "Arabized" Amazigh is the natural Maghrebi instead of a "darker skinned" one. This is not rocket science.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
I figure because you have generally been somewhat civil in your posts--despite the very frequent intellectual shortcomings of these posts, that being brutally honest and calling them out as such for every occasion they occur, might spoil the flow of the exchange. Just be real, and say you are looking for a way out. Oh not at all. I'm going to have fun now.
Intellectual shortcomings would be a more approporiate term in describing your apparent cognitive limitations. Lets take a look.
You are deceiving yet again. You are lying even as you cite me, which is self-defeating: You just quoted me saying that "Sinai's being close to the Levant doesn't make it a part of the Levant". How does this equal "it's closeness to the Levant does not matter"?
You are simply on damage control mode, because even your claim that "Africa is arbitrary" exposes the fact that you were indeed saying that "tectonic plates are subjective". You should only try deceiving, if you are very good at it.
Let me spoon feed this to you. You could decide to define the boundaries of a given area by a river, a mountain range, tectonic plates, or based on the limits of a certian demographic etc. Whether you decide to use a mountian range or river etc is arbitrary and subjective, but that does not make the river or mountian range itself subjective, understand? How could they possiby be? Basicaly Africa ends and beigns where ever people agree that it does. It can be no other way.
I'll be back later to clear up the rest of your confusion.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Intellectual shortcomings would be a more approporiate term in describing your apparent cognitive limitations. Lets take a look.
You are deceiving yet again. You are lying even as you cite me, which is self-defeating: You just quoted me saying that "Sinai's being close to the Levant doesn't make it a part of the Levant". How does this equal "it's closeness to the Levant does not matter"?
You are simply on damage control mode, because even your claim that "Africa is arbitrary" exposes the fact that you were indeed saying that "tectonic plates are subjective". You should only try deceiving, if you are very good at it.
Let me spoon feed this to you. You could decide to define the boundaries of a given area by a river, a mountain range, tectonic plates, or based on the limits of a certian demographic etc. Whether you decide to use a mountian range or river etc is arbitrary and subjective, but that does not make the river or mountian range itself subjective, understand? How could they possiby be? Basicaly Africa ends and beigns where ever people agree that it does. It can be no other way.
I'll be back later to clear up the rest of your confusion.
Tectonic plates have boundaries. You seem to be giving me more examples of your own cognitive limitations, rather than doing what you set out to do here, i.e. demonstrating "my cognitive limitations". Ironic, eh? Geologically speaking, I don't get to 'subjectively' decide the boundary of tectonic plates, because they already are. And what about large water bodies like oceans and seas that separate the major tectonic plates? If you really think they are imaginary markers of boundaries, then you should try swimming from the coastline of one tectonic plate to the next, and see if the water is truly not a barrier. Don't know about you, but to me, the only healthy way to do that would be to use a boat, yacht, ship or aircraft. Boundaries of tectonic plates can be set by fault-lines as well, although not quite a barrier as clear-cut detached land pieces. These are all objective geological assessments of the earth's crust.
It's time for you to wake up and realize that Africa (a large tectonic plate) is not imaginary. Geologically [and objectively] speaking, I can direct you to the boundaries of the African continent. Africa begins in the north, under the sea and onshore, on the southern vestige of the European plate, where the collision of the tectonic plates had given rise to the Alps mountain range. On the east, its boundary is set by the fault-line separating Sinai from the Arabian plate. And the rest is a given, i.e. shorelines surrounded by water bodies. You might also want to know that the spherical profile of the earth is not imaginary.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
I may just be forgetting the other factors they base their conclusions on, but why do these similar observations of no local expansions for the Eurasian and sub-Saharan lineages lead [some] researchers to conclude an ancient arrival for the former but the latter has to be derived from the slave trade?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The tectonic plate business is just as much a choice and a man made boundary as a mountain range, river, cataracts in the case of the Nile Valley, urine marked territories in the animal kingdom etc etc. That tectonic plates have a status of being around for millenia is irrelevant.
If someone would say otherwise, how would one explain that tectonic plates also cut across well accepted units such as continents? Are we supposed to believe that a portion of Northeastern Eurasia - which is separated clearly from North America in land mass - is in fact a part of North America? If Native Americans were to lay claim to that portion of Eurasia, let’s say only ideologically, would that all of a sudden become acceptable?
The fact is that human/animal pre occupation to divide and arrange to satisfy its own pattern seeking brain has absolutely no bearing on the earth and its geological processes, anymore than the recent identification of Ghandi's face on the surface of Mars, has any bearing on Martian geological processes.
End conclusion: yes geological manifestations obviously exist, but what they mean (to us) and how we use them to delineate and incorporate is entirely subjective and willful.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Brada-Anansi - Your continued acceptance and repeating of whatever nonsense Whites tell you, is extremely distressing.
First of all, the purported subject of the painting below is not Ahmad al-Mansur, rather, it is his Secretary Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud.
This is a DRAWING of Ahmad al-Mansur. Have we learned anything about accepting drawings made by Whites? Think table of nations!
Here is a DRAWING of the next ruling dynasty in Morocco. The guy is dressed like a Spaniard, and looks like a Spaniard, do you really think he has anything to do with Berbers or Arabs?
According to Wiki: It has been suggested that the figure of Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud may have inspired the character of William Shakespeare's Moorish hero Othello.
If that be true, I don't see the resemblance. Kinda makes me wonder if Whitey might have pulled another fast-one.
Posted by The Old Doctore (Member # 18546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': I may just be forgetting the other factors they base their conclusions on, but why do these similar observations of no local expansions for the Eurasian and sub-Saharan lineages lead [some] researchers to conclude an ancient arrival for the former but the latter has to be derived from the slave trade?
According to the most recent studies of North African mtDNA diversity, for example Frigi et al, African mtDNA lineages predate the initial arrival of European mtDNA lineages by some 2,000-7,000 years.
East African mtDNA expanded into the region 20,000 years ago
West African mtDNA expanded into the region 15,000 years ago
and
Eurasian/European mtDNA expanded into the region only 10,000-13,000 years ago. According to Frigi, European mtDNA lineages were introduced into the region over a very long time, to not culturally alter the landscape of North Africa.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
I may just be forgetting the other factors they base their conclusions on, but why do these similar observations of no local expansions for the Eurasian and sub-Saharan lineages lead [some] researchers to conclude an ancient arrival for the former but the latter has to be derived from the slave trade?
Generally, "no local expansions" implies that the population remained a relatively small effective size, such that cladistic diversity had remained fairly limited. I don't simply parrot, copy & paste what researchers say; I actually examine the molecular patterns that they are reporting. A number things, as I noted earlier, have led me to believe that much of the European mtDNA sub-clades in the Maghreb are of a relatively recent intrusion:
1)No signs of local expansion + not being able to effectively time the introduction date of European H clades in the Maghreb --> meaning, the internal diversity of Maghrebi sub-clades is fairly low + suggests little, if any, differences from examples in the Iberian peninsula.
2)Younger ages + lower diversity of Maghrebi hg H sub-clades than the Iberian examples --> meaning, the Maghrebi H sub-clades derive from a relatively shallow branch of the Iberian H clades, i.e. late expansion event. This info alone doesn't really specify to us the geographic origin of the expansion, but just that the Maghrebi examples are part of said expansion.
3)Asymmetry between European male contribution and European female contribution in the Maghrebi gene pool --> meaning, the European contribution is lopsidedly female. Male contribution is fairly rare to absent. This is not suggestive of a voluntary integration of an exogenous inbreeding population into the local (African) Maghrebi gene pool.
4)Slavery is documented. Females were apparently the more favored 'human commodity', because the male-driven market for "exotic" females in the Arab-speaking world was strong. Unlike the 'west', the Maghreb didn't develop an industrial or capital based economy from slave labor, and as such, the use of male physical labor would have been more modest than that applied in the "west". Furthermore, the Maghrebi folks could have more readily obtained that "commodity" from the Sudanic region, since there was already a thriving slave trade in that region. In this respect, European males would not be economically appealing, save for demand for ransoms.
5)Documented expulsions of "Moors"/Maghebi communities from the Iberian peninsula. These expulsions coupled with slavery could help explain the pattern of European genetic intrusion into contemporary Maghrebi gene pool.
As for the "sub-Saharan" L types, here's the deal: There are divergent Maghrebi versions of major clades belonging to these types. This is indication that their presence in the Maghreb has been fairly substantial, enough to allow for clear distinctions between Maghrebi sub-clades and Sub-Saharan versions.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The tectonic plate business is just as much a choice and a man made boundary as a mountain range, river, cataracts in the case of the Nile Valley, urine marked territories in the animal kingdom etc etc. That tectonic plates have a status of being around for millenia is irrelevant.
If someone would say otherwise, how would one explain that tectonic plates also cut across well accepted units such as continents? Are we supposed to believe that a portion of Northeastern Eurasia - which is separated clearly from North America in land mass - is in fact a part of North America? If Native Americans were to lay claim to that portion of Eurasia, let’s say only ideologically, would that all of a sudden become acceptable?
The fact is that human/animal pre occupation to divide and arrange to satisfy its own pattern seeking brain has absolutely no bearing on the earth and its geological processes, anymore than the recent identification of Ghandi's face on the surface of Mars, has any bearing on Martian geological processes.
End conclusion: yes geological manifestations obviously exist, but what they mean (to us) and how we use them to delineate and incorporate is entirely subjective and willful.
Tectonic plates are not figments of human imagination. They exist, just like the earth is not a figment of human imagination. The discussion degenerates like this, into rambling on off-course from objective thinking to emotional opining when we start infesting science with politics. What we therefore need here, is to distinguish between scientific definitions and political/social definitions.
As is obvious, I was speaking from a scientific/geological point of view, not imagination. Here's the geological definition, according to wiki - and viewers may feel free to correct it if necessary, since wiki does get things wrong:
From the perspective of geology or physical geography, continent may be extended beyond the confines of continuous dry land to include the shallow, submerged adjacent area (the continental shelf)[7] and the islands on the shelf (continental islands), as they are structurally part of the continent.[8] From this perspective the edge of the continental shelf is the true edge of the continent, as shorelines vary with changes in sea level.[9] In this sense the islands of Great Britain and Ireland are part of Europe, while Australia and the island of New Guinea together form a continent.
Yes, it is conceivable that the North American plate could extend to eastern end of the "conventional" Asian continent, once the geological underpinnings for the determination have been explored. It is done so on the basis of faults, general movement pattern of the plate, continental shelf, ocean crusts and the basic continental plate or super-structure .
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Tectonic plates are not figments of human imagination. They exist, just like the earth is not a figment of human imagination.
No one said tectonic plates are a fantasy. Is there a reason why you're repeating that its not a figment of human imagination?
quote:The discussion degenerates like this, into rambling on off-course from objective thinking to emotional opining when we start infesting science with politics.
I have no idea what you're referring to.. politics..? How does politics fit into anything that was said?
quote:As is obvious, I was speaking from a scientific/geological point of view, not imagination. Here's the geological definition, according to wiki - and viewers may feel free to correct it if necessary, since wiki does get things wrong:
You said that Sinai belonged to Africa based on tectonic plates. Are you abandoning the tectonic plates explanation in favor of continental shelves?
quote:Yes, it is conceivable that the North American plate could extend to eastern end of the "conventional" Asian continent,
Its not only conceivable, it in fact does subsume a portion of the extreme Northeastern end of the Eurasian continent. And its not the only plate that intervenes with conventional groupings.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
No one said tectonic plates are a fantasy. Is there a reason why you're repeating that its not a figment of human imagination?
Yes. I reemphasize that point because that's what (tectonic plates) I've been talking about, just to end up getting all these silly replies about "tectonic plates being subjective".
quote:
I have no idea what you're referring to.. politics..? How does politics fit into anything that was said?
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the discussion. I'm naturally talking about the fact that I'd been describing tectonic plates from a scientific point of view, while I get uninformed and/or political replies to it.
quote:
You said that Sinai belonged to Africa based on tectonic plates. Are you abandoning the tectonic plates explanation in favor of continental shelves?
Nope. I'm basing on it the geological explanation, as I had described earlier. Pay attention.
quote:
Its not only conceivable, it in fact does subsume a portion of the extreme Northeastern end of the Eurasian continent. And its not the only plate that intervenes with conventional groupings.
My advice for you, is to get acquainted with the discipline of geology, before you blindly dismiss research conclusions about tectonic plates.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Yes. I reemphasize that point because that's what (tectonic plates) I've been talking about, just to end up getting all these silly replies about "tectonic plates being subjective".
You’re talking in plural. Can you point out to me where this happened, ie where it was said that continental plates are subjective?
quote:I'm naturally talking about the fact that I'd been describing tectonic plates from a scientific point of view, while I get uninformed and/or political replies to it.
Examples?
quote:Nope. I'm basing on it the geological explanation, as I had described earlier.
You’ve used two explanations, one being tectonic plates the first time this contention came up:
False, as many of your other claims. The Sinai peninsula is very much geologically a part of Africa, and not part of the Arabian plate, as you imagine. -Explorer
And later, in response to me:
From the perspective of geology or physical geography, continent may be extended beyond the confines of continuous dry land to include the shallow, submerged adjacent area (the continental shelf)[7] and the islands on the shelf (continental islands), as they are structurally part of the continent.[8]
Clearly a shift here. Or maybe your denial of this shift can be explained by you confounding them and thinking they are the same. Which one is it?
quote:before you blindly dismiss research conclusions about tectonic plates.
Where did I do this?
Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Tectonic plates are not figments of human imagination. They exist, just like the earth is not a figment of human imagination.
No one said tectonic plates are a fantasy. Is there a reason why you're repeating that its not a figment of human imagination?
Kalonji it seems you jumped in from left field so I will jump in from right...
As I've been following the conversation, The Explorer is referencing melchior7 and his replies about tectonic plates.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You’re talking in plural. Can you point out to me where this happened, ie where it was said that continental plates are subjective?
Am I mistaken? I could have sworn that your post about tectonic plates was going on about how the boundaries of tectonic plates are subjective.
quote:
You’ve used two explanations, one being tectonic plates the first time this contention came up:
False, as many of your other claims. The Sinai peninsula is very much geologically a part of Africa, and not part of the Arabian plate, as you imagine. -Explorer
And later, in response to me:
From the perspective of geology or physical geography, continent may be extended beyond the confines of continuous dry land to include the shallow, submerged adjacent area (the continental shelf)[7] and the islands on the shelf (continental islands), as they are structurally part of the continent.[8]
Clearly a shift here. Or maybe your denial of this shift can be explained by you confounding them and thinking they are the same. Which one is it?
Enlighten me. How does the first quotation of mine contradict the latter?
Ps: that is not the only comment I made about the Sinai. I believe I did ask you to pay closer attention to the discussion.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
Kalonji it seems you jumped in from left field so I will jump in from right...
As I've been following the conversation, The Explorer is referencing melchior7 and his replies about tectonic plates.
That is true, and in fact, I was including Kalonji'/Swenet's reply in that comment, which is why I said "replies".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Am I mistaken? I could have sworn that your post about tectonic plates was going on about how the boundaries of tectonic plates are subjective.
Maybe you're the one who needs to pay close attention to the discussion. BTW, there is no need to rely on your fictive interpretations, my post is still on the previous page, waiting on you to read it.
quote:Enlighten me. How does the first quotation of mine contradict the latter?
Never said it did. Either you're fishing for trip ups or you genuinely don't know what’s going on. Like I said, heed your own advice about paying attention.
quote:that is not the only comment I made about the Sinai.
Which is exactly my point. You invoke multiple ways to incorporate Sinai into African territory, none of which consistently overlap, and in fact, they go against each other in some ways. This of course, directly proves my point, which was also made by Melchior in his last reply, but which got slept on. Land is continuous, not discrete, and attempts to align land into groupings reflects human made divisions based on (natural) geographically recognizable markings, not objective reality. Objective reality is that we have a few blobs of elevated earth surface, here and there, with the rest being covered up by the sea. Can you, in light of the above justify with reason that Sinai belongs to either Asia or Africa? I'm all ears.
quote:I believe I did ask you to pay closer attention to the discussion.
Heed your own advice.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Maybe you're the one who needs to pay close attention to the discussion. BTW, there is no need to rely on your fictive interpretations, my post is still on the previous page, waiting on you to read it.
I'm not seeing you actually correct me. I'm only seeing you deny the deed.
quote:
Never said it did. Either you're fishing for trip ups or you genuinely don't know what’s going on. Like I said, heed your own advice about paying attention.
LOL. You presented two different quotes of mine as though they contradicted one another. If that wasn't your intent, then what was the intent of posting two different comments of mine?
quote:
Which is exactly my point. You invoke multiple ways to incorporate Sinai into African territory, none of which consistently overlap, and in fact, they go against each other in some ways.
My advice that you pay attention to the discussion was not meant at poking fun or insult. I suggested it, because it is necessary!
I commented on the Sinai issue several times, but none of these contradict one another, as you complain. The problem is grounded on your lack of understanding of the posted material. Disagree? Demonstrate to me, the occasions where I supposedly contradicted myself on the issue of Sinai.
quote:
This of course, directly proves my point, which was also made by Melchior in his last reply, but which got slept on. Land is continuous, not discrete, and attempts to align land into groupings reflects human made divisions based on (natural) geographically recognizable markings, not objective reality. Objective reality is that we have a few blobs of elevated earth surface, here and there, with the rest being covered up by the sea. Can you, in light of the above justify with reason that Sinai belongs to either Asia or Africa? I'm all ears.
If you bothered heading to my advice as I offered you multiple times already, you would already know how I qualified Sinai as part of Africa, as opposed to the Levant, wouldn't you?
Your post also reinforces the observation that you are totally in the dark about the science of geology, and just criticize research conclusions thereof with uninformed thinking. Call to earth: we are talking about tectonic "plates" and how they define continents, not the earth's crust as a single entity. Of course, all these plates ultimately a part of the larger earth's underlying crust--that is obviously a no-brainer and also a non-issue that you felt compelled to bring up, simply because you are in the dark about geological determinations of continents.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Ps: You are also technically wrong about the earth's crust being absolutely continuous. There would be no volcanoes if that were the case.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^We'd also have nothing called fault lines.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:I'm not seeing you actually correct me. I'm only seeing you deny the deed.
There are more things that you’re not seeing, for example, the very fact that I clearly said, in that same post, wherein I’ve supposedly said that tectonic plates are subjective:
The tectonic plate business is just as much a choice and a man made boundary as a mountain range, river, cataracts in the case of the Nile Valley -Swenet
End conclusion: yes geological manifestations obviously exist, but what they mean (to us) and how we use them to delineate and incorporate is entirely subjective and willful. -Swenet
quote:LOL. You presented two different quotes of mine as though they contradicted one another. If that wasn't your intent, then what was the intent of posting two different comments of mine?
You can lol it off all you want, but the words in the texts speak for themselves:
Which is exactly my point. You invoke multiple ways to incorporate Sinai into African territory, none of which consistently overlap, and in fact, they go against each other in some ways. -Swenet
It cannot be said that they’re a contradiction, because they are clearly existing entities and reasonable concepts within Geology. In fact, they’re not even your thought to be asking me how what you call ‘’your quotations’’ contradict each other, as what is posted in both sections is common scientific knowledge (ie, continental shelves and tectonic plates). Where you go wrong (and also the thing I’ve purposefully limited my criticism to), is how you apply scientific concepts to make a stronger geological connection of Sinai to Africa than to Asia, and how you’re under the tenacious illusion that my illustrative example of native Americans claiming Northeast Eurasia is merely political, but your preemption of Sinai to Africa, using the exact same argument (ie, tectonic plates among others) is scientific and objective, which is of course, ridiculous. In short, there is no contradiction, you simply don’t understand your data, nor do you understand the limitations of what your data can tell you, and when you’ve departed from what your data can tell you and when you’ve entered the realm of subjective placements of borders.
quote:Your post also reinforces the observation that you are totally in the dark about the science of geology, and just criticize research conclusions thereof with uninformed thinking.
I’ve asked you before how you came to this conclusion, but you’ve drastically shortened your reply to that post and you’ve made sure not to respond to my requests. Simply regurgitating them now will not make them anymore worthy of audience. Again: where are your examples of where I supposedly criticized research, or are you attempting to say that whatever you say constitutes research? If so, then yes, I’m directly challenging your ‘’research’’.
quote:Call to earth: we are talking about tectonic "plates" and how they define continents, not the earth's crust as a single entity. Of course, all these plates ultimately a part of the larger earth's underlying crust—that is obviously a no-brainer and also a non-issue that you felt compelled to bring up
Its hilarious to me how you constantly open your mouth about people not paying attention when right after you say that, you ramble on about text portions that have zero and zip basis in objective reality. Apparently it has totally escaped you that I didn’t even use continuous and earth crust in the same sentence, in fact, I didn’t even use the word ‘’earth crust’’ in my previous post. You also seem to be under the illusion that tectonic plates define continents, which we know by the example of Northeastern Eurasia being subsumed within Northern America tectonically, as well as other numerous examples where conventional continents are undermined by tectonic positioning, is simply not true. Furthermore, continents themselves are not even universally agreed upon, with academic users generally being aware that they’re based on human agreements, which factors in with all the other points I have made. Case closed.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Ps: You are also technically wrong about the earth's crust being absolutely continuous. There would be no volcanoes if that were the case.
You don’t know the difference between land (what I was talking about) and earth crust? Not that I’m saying that land IS continuous in the manner that you’re applying it. The way I applied it (which is how it is generally applied in science), was not to communicate that everything has to physically connect.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
There are more things that you’re not seeing, for example, the very fact that I clearly said, in that same post, wherein I’ve supposedly said that tectonic plates are subjective:
The tectonic plate business is just as much a choice and a man made boundary as a mountain range, river, cataracts in the case of the Nile Valley -Swenet
End conclusion: yes geological manifestations obviously exist, but what they mean (to us) and how we use them to delineate and incorporate is entirely subjective and willful. -Swenet
How does a post that reinforces my interpretation indicate what I'm not seeing?
What does "geological manifestations" mean? Does "geological manifestations" = "tectonic plates" to you? And if the latter, tell me exactly what about the geological determinations of what constitutes "boundaries" therein amount to being "entirely subjective"? You can see why I can be forgiven for not immediately making the link between your "geological manifestations" and "tectonic plates", I hope(?)
quote:
You can lol it off all you want, but the words in the texts speak for themselves:
Which is exactly my point. You invoke multiple ways to incorporate Sinai into African territory, none of which consistently overlap, and in fact, they go against each other in some ways. -Swenet
Of course your behavior is something worthy of laughing about. You claim that my posts regarding the Sinai matter are not consistent and contradict each other, yet you cannot identify what is supposedly inconsistent in my message. Be honest, if this was done by someone else other than yourself, you'd also think it is a laughable matter.
quote: It cannot be said that they’re a contradiction, because they are clearly existing entities and reasonable concepts within Geology. In fact, they’re not even your thought to be asking me how what you call ‘’your quotations’’ contradict each other, as what is posted in both sections is common scientific knowledge (ie, continental shelves and tectonic plates).
This is even more hilarious than the charge of contradiction that you could not back up. You cited my posts: one my own words, and the other--a citation from wiki, as an aid to help you understand what perspective I was coming from, i.e. the scientific perspective. Now, you say what was contained in my post is "not my thought". LOL!!!
quote:
Where you go wrong (and also the thing I’ve purposefully limited my criticism to), is how you apply scientific concepts to make a stronger geological connection of Sinai to Africa than to Asia
Where did I go wrong with my concluding that Sinai is geologically a part of Africa rather than the Arabian plate? It is my understanding that Sinai is a geographic/geological entity, i.e. part of the earth's crust, not something floating in space.
quote: , and how you’re under the tenacious illusion that my illustrative example of native Americans claiming Northeast Eurasia is merely political, but your preemption of Sinai to Africa, using the exact same argument (ie, tectonic plates among others) is scientific and objective, which is of course, ridiculous.
Can you re-write this in English? The only illusion that comes to mind, is yet another uninformed thinking of your's, as it concerns my understanding. If you wanted to know what I understood from said line of your post, you should have simply asked. Here's my understanding:
Your post complained about the observation that the northeastern end of [what is traditionally called] Asia is actually part of the North American plate, saying that the former did not visually form a "continuous land" with the latter, and as such, you proceeded to reason with what I can only call a rhetorical question, that Native Americans could just as well lay claim to that northeastern segment of what is traditionally referred to as the Asian continent, if they went by the aforementioned logic that the northeastern segment [of Asia] is actually part of the North American plate.
I fail to see how Sinai, or my posts about Sinai, are analogous to the point you raised about the "northeastern segment of Asia" and its link with the North American plate.
Sinai is not only geographically an integral part of Africa, but it is also politically part of Africa. It beats me what is supposedly "ridiculous" about either of these observations.
quote: In short, there is no contradiction, you simply don’t understand your data, nor do you understand the limitations of what your data can tell you
Then enlighten me. Give me the demonstration of where you supposedly draw the conclusion that I don't understand something that I wrote myself, and likewise, it's limitations.
quote: and when you’ve departed from what your data can tell you and when you’ve entered the realm of subjective placements of borders.
Can you identify to me, where I supposedly "departed from what my data can tell me". It's easy to make these invalidated charges; it is harder to make them stick.
quote:
I’ve asked you before how you came to this conclusion, but you’ve drastically shortened your reply to that post and you’ve made sure not to respond to my requests.
Again, you misinform yourself, because you never understand the replies directed to you. So, here we go on again: Your post about tectonics plates being subjective and left to the whim of any observer, shows just how uninform you were and are about my posts, pertaining to the issue of Sinai. Your post was made out of total ignorance of both the premise of my comments about Sinai, and the geological understandings of tectonic plates.
quote: Simply regurgitating them now will not make them anymore worthy of audience. Again: where are your examples of where I supposedly criticized research, or are you attempting to say that whatever you say constitutes research? If so, then yes, I’m directly challenging your ‘’research’’.
You never actually head on challenged anything I had said. You simply made some ignorant comments about the boundaries of tectonic plates being subjective, which was obviously thinly veiled but cowardly jab at my comments about tectonic plates being validly quantifiable scientific entities.
quote:
Its hilarious to me how you constantly open your mouth about people not paying attention when right after you say that, you ramble on about text portions that have zero and zip basis in objective reality. Apparently it has totally escaped you that I didn’t even use continuous and earth crust in the same sentence, in fact, I didn’t even use the word ‘’earth crust’’ in my previous post. You also seem to be under the illusion that tectonic plates define continents, which we know by the example of Northeastern Eurasia being subsumed within Northern America tectonically, as well as other numerous examples where conventional continents are undermined by tectonic positioning, is simply not true. Furthermore, continents themselves are not even universally agreed upon, with academic users generally being aware that they’re based on human agreements, which factors in with all the other points I have made. Case closed.
So, let me get this straight: When you were referring to "land" being "continuous", you were not doing this in reference to continents? You obviously have trouble distinguishing illusion from fact. Geologically speaking, major tectonic plates do define continents. This serves as a good example of what I mean by your uninformed thinking. I doubt you even know that a science such as geology exists.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You don’t know the difference between land (what I was talking about) and earth crust? Not that I’m saying that land IS continuous in the manner that you’re applying it. The way I applied it (which is how it is generally applied in science), was not to communicate that everything has to physically connect.
How do you deem land is continuous? If said land is not "earth's crust", pray tell then what is "land" to you? A farm land, a property, what?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
^We'd also have nothing called fault lines.
Yes, but try telling that to Swenet and not confuse him by it.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
While I do think ancient Northwest Africans were statistically blacker than they are today (meaning there were more black people in Northwest Africa back then), I would be very surprised if the lighter-skinned Northwest Africans were predominantly descended from medieval European slave women (which is what Explorer seems to be advancing) for the following reasons:
* In most slave societies, only the wealthiest citizens could actually afford slaves, so unless the wealthiest Northwest Africans had huge harems of European women who outbred the native Northwest African women, I doubt there would be enough slave women to so dramatically alter the Northwest African gene pool.
* If there was a trade in "exotic" women across the Mediterranean, you'd think it would be bidirectional; that is, while Northwest African men were sleeping with European women, you would have European mean sleeping with African women. Yet I haven't heard of any European population having a mtDNA landscape as predominantly African as the Northwest African mtDNA landscape is predominantly European.
* If lighter-skinned Northwest Africans are all descended from European slave women imported in the last three millennia, how are we to explain the bio-anthropological evidence that ancient Northwest Africans (i.e. those predating the slave trade) were always distinct in appearance from other Africans, including Nile Valley and Saharan populations? You have Keita's studies finding them to be heterogeneous, with both tropical African and European-like people present, and then you have this:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.---Pierre M. Vermeersch, Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt, Volume 4 of Egyptian prehistory monographs
This would suggest that people different in appearance from most tropically adapted Africans have always been present in the Maghreb.
I don't doubt that North Africans have grown lighter-skinned over time, with black people forming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, but the idea that this can all be attributed to black men lusting after white women in huge numbers (which BTW has obvious racist overtones) is going overboard.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Truthcentric, what is your definition of black people?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Truthcentric wrote:
quote: This would suggest that people different in appearance from most tropically adapted Africans have always been present in the Maghreb.
What is the appearance of a tropically adapted African?
Define "tropically adapted".
Are there any Africans that are not "tropically adapted"? What ethnic groups are they?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Folks, this boy sees an intellectual thrashing coming. Watch him run like Ish Gebor does.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yet uniparental genetic markers ranging from pre-historic samples to modern samples indicate that mtDNA labeled Eurasian and MSY chromosomes labeled African support sexual bias in NW Africa for whatever the reason.
In the Islamic period there's documentation for the quantity, price, and utilization of enslaved females of European and African origins that in fact indicate sexual preferences for the entire area spanning Morocco to Arabia.
Inferred logic cannot override factual history.
It only takes a constant small trickle to effect change.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't doubt that North Africans have grown lighter-skinned over time, with black people forming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, but the idea that this can all be attributed to black men lusting after white women in huge numbers (which BTW has obvious racist overtones) is going overboard.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is not to cite Ottoni from whom we have up to date reports but the scenarios that Evergreen proposes.
This paper is associated with the Italian Archaeological Mission in Libya directed by Prof. Savino Di Lernia. The general thesis of this research paper claims that modern North African Berbers are defined by high frequencies of Iberian mtDNA (maternal lineages). Ottoni attributes this to a post last glacial maximum migration from Iberia to NW Africa. From an archaeological perspective there is no evidence of population movements from Iberia to NW Africa during the Early to Mid-Holocene. Linguistically, Berbers speak an Afro-Asiatic language which derived somewhere between NE Africa and the Horn of Africa. Finally and most importantly, Berber men are defined by the African haplogroup E-M81 which has a Bronze Age dating. E-M81 is a sub-lineage of the Sub-Saharan derived lineage E-M35* (E1b1b). Iberian men in turn are defined by the male lineage R1b and I1b2. These lineages are found in low to nil frequencies in North West African populations.
This implies an asymmetrical mating pattern. So the question becomes what model best explains this pattern of asymmetrical mating in NW Africa:
1) An early Holocene movement of Iberians into NW Africa during the prehistoric era. 2) Historic relations between NW Africans and Iberians between the Carthaginian period and the expulsion of the Moors from Spain.
Scenario #1
Under scenario # 1 the Iberians would have moved into NW Africa sometime during the early Holocene (~ 10kya). Assuming this migration included both male and female Iberians one would expect to find men carrying Iberian lineages R1b and I1b2 in NW Africa during the early Holocene. Haplogroup E-M81 derived during the Bronze Age. This lineage derived from Sub-Saharan African derived lineage E-M35*. Hence one would expect the ancestral pool of E-M81 carrying men to have mothers with Sub-Saharan derived mtDNA, unless it was the population of men carrying Sub-Saharan African derived lineage E-M35* that mated with women carrying Iberian derived mtDNA. But one must ask, what happened to the Iberian derived men? Was there a neolithic war for resources in the Sahara that wiped-out the Iberian derived men and allowed the Sub-Saharan derived men to mate with Iberian derived women? And why were Iberian derived women preferred over the women indigenous to the E-M35* gene pool? This seems unlikely, as Africans were/are matrilineal and would have given preference to the women carrying the ancestral heritage.
Scenario #2
Under scenario # 2 the NW Africans would have moved into Iberia sometime during the historic era and NW African men would have been isolated from African women and have privileged status to have access to Iberian women. This is what we see during the Carthaginian period and during the Islamic period in Al-Andalusia. NW African soldiers, far away from home and serving as occupying forces would have had privilege to Iberian women over indigenous Iberian men and would not have access to African women. Hence, they would have mated with Iberian women. Over time there may have also been a preference for Iberian women because of unique phenetic traits found in Europeans (i.e., exotica).
Scenario # 2 seems to be the most parsimonious explanation. But why would this scholar want to posit Iberians in early Holocene NW Africa? The answer is it gives those with a Eurocentric agenda a gateway to the neolithic Sahara and in turn a gateway to Ancient Egypt, as the Ancient Egyptians primary ancestry comes from the Eastern Sahara. This in turn circumvents (i.e., flanks) the position espoused by Martin Bernal and others that Western Civilization was founded with roots in Black Africa.
Also, note that Ottoni claims to have failed to genetically analyze the ancient individuals from the Fezzan. Yet, in an earlier study (“Sand, Stones, and Bones”) associated with Dr. Di Lernia one Garamante subject was analyzed and the mtDNA was fully characterized and was found to be a member of the African haplotype L3. This is consistent with the derivation of E-M81 from a population associated with Sub-Saharan derived E-M35* and an associated pool of Sub-Saharan derived maternal lineages.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Scenario # 2 seems to overlook Kefi's findings of Eurasian mtDNA in actual 12kyo Taforalt samples. These samples show low African frequencies for U6 (8%) and L3/M/N (4%) in comparison to H/U, H, JT, and V which make up the bulk.
But Scenario # 2 succeeding Scenario # 1 is for me the model best explaining the Iberian mtDNA.
Apparently this trend goes way back in time and can't be poo-pooed by implying considering it is pandering to "obvious racist overtones."
NOTE: Kefi's name and the chart are hyperlinks to her 2005 report and PowerPoint respectively. She is unethical in ignoring TafVIII, i.e., her only L3/M/N ("sub-Saharan female") fossil find.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Also, note that Ottoni claims to have failed to genetically analyze the ancient individuals from the Fezzan. Yet, in an earlier study (“Sand, Stones, and Bones”) associated with Dr. Di Lernia one Garamante subject was analyzed and the mtDNA was fully characterized and was found to be a member of the African haplotype L3. This is consistent with the derivation of E-M81 from a population associated with Sub-Saharan derived E-M35* and an associated pool of Sub-Saharan derived maternal lineages.
I would LOVE a citation for this, even though I suspect the paper is inaccessible to me at the moment and probably in Italian (?)
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri wrote:
quote: Yet uniparental genetic markers ranging from pre-historic samples to modern samples indicate that mtDNA labeled Eurasian and MSY chromosomes labeled African support sexual bias in NW Africa for whatever the reason.
In the Islamic period there's documentation for the quantity, price, and utilization of enslaved females of European and African origins that in fact indicate sexual preferences for the entire area spanning Morocco to Arabia.
Inferred logic cannot override factual history.
You can provide the documentation whenever you feel the need to have us take you seriously. We deal with facts here.
You can also tell us if muslims preferred white women so much, why are they not paying for them now since there are a lot more wealthy muslims now due to oil and all.
PS. Have you seen white women without makeup? Next you'll be telling us myths about how white women age so much more wonderfully than "middle eastern" women.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri, you seem to have a problem with African diversity. Why?
I thought you said that Africans have the highest diversity of any continent of people on the planet, now you're pulling an about face on your statement.
Is it because you are obsessed with this concept of "black" which your west european masters have sodomized your brain with. Do you believe that the people of "north" Africa are not black?
If so how is it that you believe that "north" Africans are not black but the Khoisan are? You need to explain this.
Don't run Al.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the Deludedass:
It doesn't matter what term you use like "tanned white man"
The man above is the same color as thousands of paintings in good condition of ancient Egyptians and many have a reddish brown brick type color. Some paintings are darker, chocolate brown and others lighter yellowish. Does this mean that the Egyptians were Mediterranean or part Mediterranean? Not necessarily
what it means is that you can't use your typical dark = black, paint faded assumptions as proofs.
First of all, you are not only a liar but delusional as well if you think that tanned ruddy guy is the same exact complexion as ancient Egyptians let alone King Tut!!
Sorry but a tanned or sunburnt man is not the same color as the sard or mahogany type complexions of the ancient Egyptians and their indigenous Libyan neighbors!! As far as "Mediterranean" that is a Sea border by 2 regions-- Africa and Eurasia; 3 regions if count Europe separately from Asia.
Nobody is buying your horse manure, so best sell it elsewhere than this forum.
Djehuti = failure
all three photos are fairly similar and all in the range of the variant ancient Egyptian art. You are simply stupid if you don't admit to this. The way you call the man "tanned" or "sunburnt" has a racist tinge to it, you act you know that the man didn't look that way his whole life. stop it
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Also, note that Ottoni claims to have failed to genetically analyze the ancient individuals from the Fezzan. Yet, in an earlier study (“Sand, Stones, and Bones”) associated with Dr. Di Lernia one Garamante subject was analyzed and the mtDNA was fully characterized and was found to be a member of the African haplotype L3. This is consistent with the derivation of E-M81 from a population associated with Sub-Saharan derived E-M35* and an associated pool of Sub-Saharan derived maternal lineages.
I would LOVE a citation for this, even though I suspect the paper is inaccessible to me at the moment and probably in Italian (?)
You can get it in English print (it's a book)
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I would be very surprised if the lighter-skinned Northwest Africans were predominantly descended from medieval European slave women (which is what Explorer seems to be advancing) for the following reasons:
* In most slave societies, only the wealthiest citizens could actually afford slaves, so unless the wealthiest Northwest Africans had huge harems of European women who outbred the native Northwest African women, I doubt there would be enough slave women to so dramatically alter the Northwest African gene pool.
It is interesting that you claim to be countering my position, yet did not offer a head-on counter point by point reply to the cases I laid out. Is there a reason you haven't done this?
In any event, I'll afford your post what you hadn't mine; I'll show courtesy by tearing down your reasons point by point.
quote:
* If there was a trade in "exotic" women across the Mediterranean, you'd think it would be bidirectional;
Strike 1.
There is no documentation of a slave trade in Europe specializing in Maghrebi slaves, male or female. So, you cannot take for granted that that any slave-trade "has" to be "bidirectional".
Furthermore, your reason above ignored this reason [and pay close attention to highlighted words]; recap:
4)Slavery is documented. Females were apparently the more favored 'human commodity', because the male-driven market for "exotic" females in the Arab-speaking world was strong. Unlike the 'west', the Maghreb didn't develop an industrial or capital based economy from slave labor, and as such, the use of male physical labor would have been more modest than that applied in the "west". Furthermore, the Maghrebi folks could have more readily obtained that "commodity" from the Sudanic region, since there was already a thriving slave trade in that region. In this respect, European males would not be economically appealing, save for demand for ransoms.
That above, as shown, was clearly talking about the slave trade in the Maghreb and the Arab-speaking world, not Europe. It tells you why European females were in stronger demand than European males.
What I said about African households containing multiple wives, is not something you can assess by "western" standards, as you have been doing in the case of the market for female slaves. This is because, you simply make presumptions about Africans and their culture without really knowing much about either. It is one thing learning about people from googling, and it is another, actually growing around them. I tell people to pay careful attention to the flow of the discussion for a good reason. If you had bothered reading the reasons I laid out, my guess is that you would have spared yourself from making any claim about the slave-trade "needing to be bidirectional", which to be frank, is a fairly ridiculous thing to say. Slave trade is an involuntary thing -- it doesn't "need to be bidirectional".
quote: that is, while Northwest African men were sleeping with European women, you would have European mean sleeping with African women.
This is a slave-trade. See above. Using your logic, Europeans in the American colonies and Europe, who relied heavily on African slave labor, would have traded European slaves to Africans, so that the trans-Atlantic slave trade "would have had to have been bidirectional".
quote: Yet I haven't heard of any European population having a mtDNA landscape as predominantly African as the Northwest African mtDNA landscape is predominantly European.
That is because your reason has a bogus premise, and amounts to a red herring.
quote: * If lighter-skinned Northwest Africans are all descended from European slave women imported in the last three millennia,
Strike 2.
Nobody made any claim that "all" lighter-skinned Maghrebi folks are descended from European slave women. It is a figment of your imagination.
quote: how are we to explain the bio-anthropological evidence that ancient Northwest Africans (i.e. those predating the slave trade) were always distinct in appearance from other Africans, including Nile Valley and Saharan populations?
Uninformed thinking. The Maghrebi specimens have never been one homogeneous entity, temporally or spatially. They have displayed varying qualities. It needs to be sorted out which is which depending on sources, but reports generally implicate some or another element in displaying stronger "sub-Saharan" affinities than the other. Know that "sub-Saharan" in most of these cases is reference to stereotyped "Negro".
quote:
This would suggest that people different in appearance from most tropically adapted Africans have always been present in the Maghreb.
Nope, just your misunderstanding of data, and perhaps lack of acquaintanceship with a broad pool of reading material.
quote:
but the idea that this can all be attributed to black men lusting after white women in huge numbers (which BTW has obvious racist overtones) is going overboard.
Don't you think drawing conclusions without a substantiated background qualifies more as going overboard than drawing conclusion from evidence? Likewise, don't you think drawing conclusions before you've read something is a matter of overreaching?
I'll post my arguments for you once more. I urge you to pay attention this time around, before you attempt to reply. And if you are going to reply me at all, at least be prepared to make sure that your reasons head-on address mine point by point:
Generally, "no local expansions" implies that the population remained a relatively small effective size, such that cladistic diversity had remained fairly limited. I don't simply parrot, copy & paste what researchers say; I actually examine the molecular patterns that they are reporting. A number things, as I noted earlier, have led me to believe that much of the European mtDNA sub-clades in the Maghreb are of a relatively recent intrusion:
1)No signs of local expansion + not being able to effectively time the introduction date of European H clades in the Maghreb --> meaning, the internal diversity of Maghrebi sub-clades is fairly low + suggests little, if any, differences from examples in the Iberian peninsula.
2)Younger ages + lower diversity of Maghrebi hg H sub-clades than the Iberian examples --> meaning, the Maghrebi H sub-clades derive from a relatively shallow branch of the Iberian H clades, i.e. late expansion event. This info alone doesn't really specify to us the geographic origin of the expansion, but just that the Maghrebi examples are part of said expansion.
3)Asymmetry between European male contribution and European female contribution in the Maghrebi gene pool --> meaning, the European contribution is lopsidedly female. Male contribution is fairly rare to absent. This is not suggestive of a voluntary integration of an exogenous inbreeding population into the local (African) Maghrebi gene pool.
4)Slavery is documented. Females were apparently the more favored 'human commodity', because the male-driven market for "exotic" females in the Arab-speaking world was strong. Unlike the 'west', the Maghreb didn't develop an industrial or capital based economy from slave labor, and as such, the use of male physical labor would have been more modest than that applied in the "west". Furthermore, the Maghrebi folks could have more readily obtained that "commodity" from the Sudanic region, since there was already a thriving slave trade in that region. In this respect, European males would not be economically appealing, save for demand for ransoms.
5)Documented expulsions of "Moors"/Maghebi communities from the Iberian peninsula. These expulsions coupled with slavery could help explain the pattern of European genetic intrusion into contemporary Maghrebi gene pool.
As for the "sub-Saharan" L types, here's the deal: There are divergent Maghrebi versions of major clades belonging to these types. This is indication that their presence in the Maghreb has been fairly substantial, enough to allow for clear distinctions between Maghrebi sub-clades and Sub-Saharan versions.
Now, tell me where I'd gone wrong in these point, if you care to!...because only then, we can have a meaningful discussion that is built around mutual understanding of one another, and not distortions and misinformation.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
On the Kefi et al. deal, those who are interested may go through the critique I offered: Link.
Additionally, for those familiar with Rando et al. (2005), they present a scenario wherein earlier so-called "Eurasian" maternal markers in the Maghreb could have likely come by way of the "Near East", which could give the impression that they are "European" in origin when they are really not, while going onto entertain the possibility that much of the European contribution came by way of historic genetic intrusions. I looked at their material as well: Here Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: there's evidence for European (north Mediterranean) immigrants to littoral N Africa in prehistoric times
Amenhotep III ordered 40 girls from Milkilu, the Canaanite prince of Gezer, at 40 kit of silver each
Behold, I have sent you Hanya, the commissioner of the archers, with merchandise in order to have beautiful concubines, i.e. weavers; silver, gold, garments, turquoises, all sorts of precious stones, chairs of ebony, as well as all good things, worth 160 deben. In total: forty concubines - the price of every concubine is forty of silver. Therefore, send very beautiful concubines without blemish.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Also, note that Ottoni claims to have failed to genetically analyze the ancient individuals from the Fezzan. Yet, in an earlier study (“Sand, Stones, and Bones”) associated with Dr. Di Lernia one Garamante subject was analyzed and the mtDNA was fully characterized and was found to be a member of the African haplotype L3. This is consistent with the derivation of E-M81 from a population associated with Sub-Saharan derived E-M35* and an associated pool of Sub-Saharan derived maternal lineages.
I would LOVE a citation for this, even though I suspect the paper is inaccessible to me at the moment and probably in Italian (?)
You can get it in English print (it's a book)
Thanks, I've found the book, just not a citation for altakuri's reference. I assume that if I want to see the full context I'd have to buy the book then. I just never heard about this and thought it to be interesting.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The tectonic plate business is just as much a choice and a man made boundary as a mountain range, river, cataracts in the case of the Nile Valley, urine marked territories in the animal kingdom etc etc. That tectonic plates have a status of being around for millenia is irrelevant.
If someone would say otherwise, how would one explain that tectonic plates also cut across well accepted units such as continents? Are we supposed to believe that a portion of Northeastern Eurasia - which is separated clearly from North America in land mass - is in fact a part of North America? If Native Americans were to lay claim to that portion of Eurasia, let’s say only ideologically, would that all of a sudden become acceptable?
The fact is that human/animal pre occupation to divide and arrange to satisfy its own pattern seeking brain has absolutely no bearing on the earth and its geological processes, anymore than the recent identification of Ghandi's face on the surface of Mars, has any bearing on Martian geological processes.
End conclusion: yes geological manifestations obviously exist, but what they mean (to us) and how we use them to delineate and incorporate is entirely subjective and willful.
Exactly!
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer,
The bit about ruling out major contributions of historic migrations to Tunisia on the account of similarities between the "Andalusian" communities and those in the Magbreb cosmopolitan samples makes no sense, since the "Moors" would have been in the very region, where the H clades were supposed to have emanated.
Allow me...the reasoning is that if Berbers who have always lived in the same area have the same h types as fairly recently arrived Moriscos, then this would suggest they received these clades from a period which predates the Moors in Spain. And I see you didn't bother to coment on Ottoni's study.
The conclusion reads, "Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula)'.
In other words, your post has no empirical foundation
I have already cited various sources. By contrast your assertion about Black Riffians is backed by only one source, an Afrocentric website and it is the only place on the internet to claim drawings of Black riffians, let alone to mention the existence of Black Riffians. Is that not peculiar? And so you delude yourself into thinking that you have established sometjing when you have established nothing at all.
LOL, you are not familiar with a strawman. You did offer to use "cultural conservatism" as a crutch to say that the Riffians were not influenced by Arabs,
You are being disingenious as ususal and yet what other option do you have except to admit that your are wrong? I have already conceded that Riffians were cinverted to Islam. But that doesn't make them fully arabized. My contention has been that the Arab influnce on Riffians has been minimal compared with other Moroccan populations. Their preservation of Berber langugae and culture clearly attests to this. Only a fool would would continue to argue the contrary. Also you should know that many of the inhabitans of the coastal towns at the foot of the Rif were Moorish refugees from Spain as opposed to the Berbers who lived in the highlands, who my arguments focus on.
What is not a given, is your uncorroborated supposition that such a market(s) never existed in the Rif itself, in the face of the fact that pirates involved in slavery had come from this very region.
Obviously I can not rule out the possiblity of a slave market in the Rif, but the fact the no mention of it has survived in historical accounts as comparede with the knoiwn slave markets of Sale, Algiers or Tripoli would led one to suspect that whatever it was, was of little importance or not likely a major seller. Moreover there were no major towns along the Rif coast at that time. Also we have an number of eye witness accounts of escapees who made it back to Europe. And as far as I have seen, their experience was in urban areas... Algiers having more European slaves than anywhere else. So go out on a limb if you like but there isn't much that supports your little scenario. Then I could mention the Kabyle another Berber group who live in the foot hills of the Atlas Mountains, who also have some of the lightest phenotyes in North Africa, their mtdna averaging near 90% Eurasian! Coincidence? Btw your Rastafarian website which mentioned Black Riffians says that the Kabyles are Blacks as well.
Slaves could just as well be traded for "goods" rather than outright currency...like say, if someone were to offer the slave trader so and so number of sheep, goat, produce or what have you, in exchange for a slave..
More suppositions
A good majority of European mtDNA in the Maghreb is very likely attributable to the slave trade, because 1)many of the Maghrebi mtDNA clusters thereof are virtually indistinguishable from the Iberian examples--meaning, the time depth of the contribution must not have been considerable, or else one would have seen more divergent Maghrebi clades than currently the case,
And yet many of the experts on the issue conclude otherwise
why European genetic contribution in the Maghreb also happens to be lopsidedly "female",
Lopsided is good term. No where will you find such a an imbalance which favors foreign females over native ones, except where an invasion has occured. In any event even if we were to consider your idea, we know that the majority of slaves DID go to cities. So that is where your extravagant scenario would make the most difference. And yet it is in these remote less arabized Berber populations were we find the lightest phenotypes. Coupled with this, we have the Guanche in the canary Island who have clear genetic, cultural and linguitsic affinities with Berbers and who were also reported to fiar skin and hair Then of course there are the ancient Libyans. Clearly the evidence favors my argument not yours. You'd be the bigger man to just come out and admit it.
Furthermore, you lie about Latin American genetic makeup. It is far more complex than your simplistic guesswork. There is a complex mix of recent African, "native American"/east (central) Asian and European genetic imprint, both Y-DNA and mtDNA
Oh please! A red herring. There is some African mixture sure, mostly around the Caribbean. But by and large the mix is indigenous and European. And.. "east (central) Asian"..eh???
The Maghreb on the other hand, is overwhelmingly of African paternal ancestry, AND in this instance, Africans are NOT invaders; they are THE natives
Sorry I don't subscribe to some monolithic pan african bullshit. Africa has seen its share of back migraions, having great diversity among inhabitants and a number of unrelated language families. As far as I am concerned folks are native to the specific region that they tradtionaly hail from, not the whole freakin continent. The Bantus invaded central and Southern African oppressing and killing off many of the orignal inhabitants. That is as egregious and cruel and as the Conquistadors. I don't care what anbody says.
if they are supposed to be "Med traits". Is it possible that you think the Mediterranean sea goes all the way to "sub-Saharan" east Africa?
No but apperantly a certain of set phenotypical tarits do. That you have some personal qualms with regard to the terminology is neither here nor there.
How do people from across the sea outside of the African mainland become more native to Africa than people who had been there all along, while Africans become the "invaders" on African land?
Presumbaly the proto Berbers were part of the Capsian culture in East North africa which began to spread westward where they asorbed the Eurasians. Who lived in the Maghreb prior to the Euraisna? At some point probably Blacks who moved further south across the Sahara. Bottom line, the Capsians from further East were not there all along, Afrticans or not.
You would be calling them "Africans" rather than "Eurasians", if they belonged there in the first place, and if you actually bought into your own crap about the actual Africans being "invaders"
I find that irrelavant and but I'm intrigued that this pan african type ideology is so ingrained in you...and fuels your bias.
The issue is about these so-called "African invaders" leaving their own females and kids behind *for good*, on a land mass they never left to begin with. These are not folks who supposedly crossed oceans to get to new territory. They were still on the continent
Yep there you go again. As we have said the continent is arbitrarily drawn. And I cannot answer to the qustion of what happen to their females and children. I only know that they replaced the Eurasin males for the most part and added the Eurasain females to their group. And this is typical. Go back before the neolithic and most Europeans males would have been hg I. Today since the Indo European invasion most of the Males in western Euope are hg R, but there is no record of any significant change in Mtdna.
Not very good with expressing yourself, are you? I believe you meant to say that it would be the smart and logical conclusion to come to.
Well I thought it was clear enough. Let me try again. I do agree with that you said in one of your posts that slavery is abhorrent regardless of who practices it on whom, but I'm not concerned with trying to deny or downplay that Whites were enslaved for reason of shame or whatever, in whatever era. My contention is that Eurasians had a strong presence in North Africa since prehistoric times and are not the result of RECENT slavery.
Your argument is deeply disturbed by any prospect of "slavery", since it is the very thing you are trying so hard to deny in the first place. Lets not make this into a red herring.
To save me the risk of sounding redundant, please refer to an earlier post about this "generational thing" that you are espousing.
Dude if a Black has children with a white the kids will ususlaly look Black. White genes are recessive. Do you have any idea of the ratio of White females to Blacks needed to turn that around???
LOL, Riffians were unable to do the job, and so, they employed "sub-Saharan blacks
Hell the Moroccans employed Blacks for everything. You ever heard of the Black guard? Please read this if you havent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard Besides piracy is a dangerous line of work.
northern Europeans vis-a-vis their prehistoric counterparts, which in essence would seem to negate your blond haired and blue eyed isolated "prehistoric" white "Eurasians" in an inhabited land on the African coast. LOL
I don't know if that is true. But as I said they may have come through Iberia from further north. Remember the Guanche
Also I believe you mentioned that the Moorish ambassador to Queen Elizabeth was part Fulani. But my point in posting is image was to show yet another example of Moors being Middle Eastern looking. Whther or not his mother was Fulani doesn't change that, the man was still a pale face, relatively speaking.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass:
Lyingass = failed miserably!
quote:all three photos are fairly similar and all in the range of the variant ancient Egyptian art. You are simply stupid if you don't admit to this. The way you call the man "tanned" or "sunburnt" has a racist tinge to it, you act you know that the man didn't look that way his whole life. stop it
You idiot, the man in the first picture is obviously tanned as can be seen by his ruddy or reddish hue!! Stop trying to pass of tanned whites as Egyptians it ain't happening!
By the way, here is an even better image of Tut which you try to post a lightened version of.
As for the Egyptian men, their complexions may indeed have been present in ancient times, but unlike the European guy they are NOT tanned and obviously still recognized as black. As someone pointed out before the actor Mike Epps could fit in.
So quit with the nonsensical horse squeeze and run back to Mathilda. Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Tectonic plates are not figments of human imagination. They exist, just like the earth is not a figment of human imagination.
No one said tectonic plates are a fantasy. Is there a reason why you're repeating that its not a figment of human imagination?
Kalonji it seems you jumped in from left field so I will jump in from right...
As I've been following the conversation, The Explorer is referencing melchior7 and his replies about tectonic plates.
And you likely have not been following it very well. I never said that tectonic plates were subjective. Explorer had brought up tectonic plates with another poster USING them to claim that they made the Sinai part Africa. I said that this was subjective. MEANING his DECISION to use the tectonic plates as opposed to anything else. The current geological convention places the Sinai in Asia. And this view holds the Isthmus of Suez as the dividing line. Of course this is subjective as well.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Egypt and the Middle East are connected.
The fact that each area are on different tectonic plates is irrelevant to the morphology of people living in these regions.
Therefore terms "Africa" and "Asia" are distractions to discussions of human biology as discussed here. The relevant information are the genetic clines and clusters and biomorphics. These overlap in these two connected areas, Egypt and the Middle East. It depends on how much they do or do not overlap.
So for example, if you compare an ancient Arabian to an ancient Egyptian, genetically and morphologically how similar are they, despite being on different tectonic plates than the ancient Egyptian is to an ancient person of, say the area now called Zaire?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
As you can see folks. "The Explorer" runs from me.....................Argyle......................The Mighty.
He knows his points are invalid and that engaging me in a scholarly debate is futile. He learns quickly. Only a few scholarly beatdowns had to be administered to him before he knew it was better to tuck tail and run.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Altakruri,
NW African soldiers, far away from home and serving as occupying forces would have had privilege to Iberian women over indigenous Iberian men and would not have access to African women. Hence, they would have mated with Iberian women. Over time there may have also been a preference for Iberian women because of unique phenetic traits found in Europeans (i.e., exotica).
Remember the ones with the lightest phenotypical traits are Berbers who live in areas where Berber culture and language still dominate. These would not be folks who were expelled from Spain. Also for the record, there were Black female slaves brought into Spain during its occupation. But the main thing is we have reports of light skinned people in North Africa from earlier times from folks in the Maghreb, to Libyans to Canary islanders.
This in turn circumvents (i.e., flanks) the position espoused by Martin Bernal and others that Western Civilization was founded with roots in Black Africa.
Bernal was not so focused on race or the notion of Western Civilization having roots in 'Black Africa. Bernal was basically challenging the age old European bias with tended to play down and the cultural and technological influences from outside Europe. Bernal was right in pointing out that not only the Egyptians but the Phoenicians and other from the Middle East had a subatantial inluence on the Greeks, on many levels. But Bernal does harp on the race of the Egyptians though he does acknowledge that they were technically Africans and that if we applied the ridicuous one drop rule to them many could be considered Black. What Martin Bernal has done, in Black Athena, is to argue the basic case that Greek culture didn’t arise out of a vacuum, that it had significant Egyptian and Phoenician roots.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
what people are missing is that the preference for light skinned women is shown at many period with dynastic history.
It cannot be attributed to speculation that men stayed outside more. In Africa you do not see drastic differences in skin color between men and women who are of the same tribe, slight differences maybe.
It cannot be attributed to symbolism because many of these portraits are of real people not Gods. Female Gods are sometimes portrayed light skinned but it has much more yellow in it, an attempt to make it look like gold.
They were race mixers these Egyptians.
But in addition you can find Greek people as dark as the Egyptians. It doesn't mean the Egyptian were of the same stock.
It means that if you look at the above photo for example before we even get to the female and question if she is "white" or not the complexion indicates man could be African or could be Mediterranean/Levantine/Arab.
He could be a lot of people. You can't exclude them solely based on skin tone alone.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer
since there was already a thriving slave trade in that region. In this respect, European males would not be economically appealing, save for demand for ransoms.
taht is not what the historical sources report. Male slaves were likely more numerous. As the most common source of slaves were from pirated European ships. Ironically it was often European male slaves who worked the galleys in these ships who were most needed. Males were often used for contruction and various forms of labor as well. I see you conveniently forgot the sources I quoted in my earlier posts.
"Slaves in Barbary fell into two broad categories. The 'public slaves' belonged to the ruling pasha, who by right of rulership could claim an eighth of all Christians captured by the corsairs, and buy all the others he wanted at reduced prices. These slaves were housed in large prisons known as baños (baths), often in wretchedly overcrowded conditions. They were mostly used to row the corsair galleys in the pursuit of loot (and more slaves) - work so strenuous that thousands died or went mad while chained to the oar.
During the winter these galeotti worked on state projects - quarrying stone, building walls or harbour facilities, felling timber and constructing new galleys. The pasha also bought most female captives, some of whom were taken into his harem, where they lived out their days in captivity. The majority, however, were purchased for their ransom value; while awaiting their release, they worked in the palace as harem attendants...
Some were well cared for, becoming virtual companions of their owners... Many other slaves belonged to 'private parties.' Their treatment and work varied as much as their masters did. Some were well cared for, becoming virtual companions of their owners. Others were worked as hard as any 'public' slave, in agricultural labour, or construction work, or selling water or other goods around town on his (or her) owner's behalf".
"It was first a century later that Moroccan kings used European slaves to build their palaces.. The palace became known as "The Incomparable". http://looklex.com/morocco/marrakech12.htm Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
what people are missing is that the preference for light skinned women is shown at many period with dynastic history.
It cannot be attributed to speculation that men stayed outside more. In Africa you do not see drastic differences in skin color between men and women who are of the same tribe, slight differences maybe.
It cannot be attributed to symbolism because many of these portraits are of real people not Gods. Female Gods are sometimes portrayed light skinned but it has much more yellow in it, an attempt to make it look like gold.
They were race mixers these Egyptians.
But in addition you can find Greek people as dark as the Egyptians. It doesn't mean the Egyptian were of the same stock.
It means that if you look at the above photo for example before we even get to the female and question if she is "white" or not the complexion indicates man could be African or could be Mediterranean/Levantine/Arab.
He could be a lot of people. You can't exclude them solely based on skin tone alone.
Yes, there are numerous depictions of light women. But you will have a hard time getting folks on here to admit that. Many will argue that the depictions have been tampered with or that the original paint has faded. And as a last resort they will always say well Africans are diverse and in come in a variety of features and shades..so there. I keep telling them there were always a lot of light skinned Middle Eatern looking Egyptians in Lower Egypt but they refuse to believe it.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Exlporer aka "Ma Dick" wrote:
quote: since there was already a thriving slave trade in that region. In this respect, European males would not be economically appealing, save for demand for ransoms.
What slave trade was in that region? And even if there was one, why would that mean that European males would not have been used as slaves?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
what people are missing is that the preference for light skinned women is shown at many period with dynastic history.
It cannot be attributed to speculation that men stayed outside more. In Africa you do not see drastic differences in skin color between men and women who are of the same tribe, slight differences maybe.
It cannot be attributed to symbolism because many of these portraits are of real people not Gods. Female Gods are sometimes portrayed light skinned but it has much more yellow in it, an attempt to make it look like gold.
They were race mixers these Egyptians.
But in addition you can find Greek people as dark as the Egyptians. It doesn't mean the Egyptian were of the same stock.
It means that if you look at the above photo for example before we even get to the female and question if she is "white" or not the complexion indicates man could be African or could be Mediterranean/Levantine/Arab.
He could be a lot of people. You can't exclude them solely based on skin tone alone.
Yes, there are numerous depictions of light women. But you will have a hard time getting folks on here to admit that. Many will argue that the depictions have been tampered with or that the original paint has faded. And as a last resort they will always say well Africans are diverse and in come in a variety of features and shades..so there. I keep telling them there were always a lot of light skinned Middle Eatern looking Egyptians in Lower Egypt but they refuse to believe it.
melchior7 _ I noticed that except for you and DJ, everyone else gave Lionesses posts the attention they deserved, they were ignored.
Me thinks that is because both you and DJ suffer from the same delusional thinking as Lioness.
So then, in your delusional mind, what ever happened to those ancient people who were the same color as their clothing?
(P.S. we know that they are wearing clothing because we can see the hem of the women's dresses.)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Tectonic plates are not figments of human imagination. They exist, just like the earth is not a figment of human imagination.
No one said tectonic plates are a fantasy. Is there a reason why you're repeating that its not a figment of human imagination?
Kalonji it seems you jumped in from left field so I will jump in from right...
As I've been following the conversation, The Explorer is referencing melchior7 and his replies about tectonic plates.
And you likely have not been following it very well. I never said that tectonic plates were subjective. Explorer had brought up tectonic plates with another poster USING them to claim that they made the Sinai part Africa. I said that this was subjective. MEANING his DECISION to use the tectonic plates as opposed to anything else.
Exactly, there is no reason why tectonic plates should be the argument to go by to make it a part of either side of the red sea, so yeah, it is every bit as much as a choice as other geological marks of the face of the earth, and therein (people being willful about their picks) lies the subjectivety.
Of course, we're not entirely in agreement either, because you do the exact same thing. You people just don't understand that Sinai, as well as many other regions can be allocated to whatever party, depending on which arguments are used. Hence, my saying that you can't use science to do what you folks are doing. On the basis of continental shelves for example, the case can be made that either Africa or Eurasia, is not really its own entity, but that one is simply a part of the other. Then what?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
To buy it has to be shipped from Italy
Oh well I guess. Unless, I can find it at the Library
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Also, note that Ottoni claims to have failed to genetically analyze the ancient individuals from the Fezzan. Yet, in an earlier study (“Sand, Stones, and Bones”) associated with Dr. Di Lernia one Garamante subject was analyzed and the mtDNA was fully characterized and was found to be a member of the African haplotype L3. This is consistent with the derivation of E-M81 from a population associated with Sub-Saharan derived E-M35* and an associated pool of Sub-Saharan derived maternal lineages.
I would LOVE a citation for this, even though I suspect the paper is inaccessible to me at the moment and probably in Italian (?)
You can get it in English print (it's a book)
Thanks, I've found the book, just not a citation for altakuri's reference. I assume that if I want to see the full context I'd have to buy the book then. I just never heard about this and thought it to be interesting.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Swenet
Of course, we're not entirely in agreement either, because you do the exact same thing. You people just don't understand that Sinai, as well as many other regions can be allocated to whatever party, depending on which arguments are used.
On the contrary, I have been arguing the exact same thing. You can argue it either way depending on what geological feature you want to use as a marker. I never even wanted to get into this topic since it has no real bearing on actual demographics except to allow narrow minded folks to say that this or that group is "African" because of where they have drawn the lines.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You must learn to use the quote feature so as to identify replies from initial comments if you want a continuing dialogue. As you can see below, it's impossible to tell who wrote what.
For the record, I forwarded an appropriate post made by Evergreen a while back and have never, nor ever intend to, read Bernal.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Altakruri,
NW African soldiers, far away from home and serving as occupying forces would have had privilege to Iberian women over indigenous Iberian men and would not have access to African women. Hence, they would have mated with Iberian women. Over time there may have also been a preference for Iberian women because of unique phenetic traits found in Europeans (i.e., exotica).
Remember the ones with the lightest phenotypical traits are Berbers who live in areas where Berber culture and language still dominate. These would not be folks who were expelled from Spain. Also for the record, there were Black female slaves brought into Spain during its occupation. But the main thing is we have reports of light skinned people in North Africa from earlier times from folks in the Maghreb, to Libyans to Canary islanders.
This in turn circumvents (i.e., flanks) the position espoused by Martin Bernal and others that Western Civilization was founded with roots in Black Africa.
Bernal was not so focused on race or the notion of Western Civilization having roots in 'Black Africa. Bernal was basically challenging the age old European bias with tended to play down and the cultural and technological influences from outside Europe. Bernal was right in pointing out that not only the Egyptians but the Phoenicians and other from the Middle East had a subatantial inluence on the Greeks, on many levels. But Bernal does harp on the race of the Egyptians though he does acknowledge that they were technically Africans and that if we applied the ridicuous one drop rule to them many could be considered Black. What Martin Bernal has done, in Black Athena, is to argue the basic case that Greek culture didn’t arise out of a vacuum, that it had significant Egyptian and Phoenician roots.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Mike11,
So then, in your delusional mind, what ever happened to those ancient people who were the same color as their clothing?
(P.S. we know that they are wearing clothing because we can see the hem of the women's dresses.)
So her clothing happens to be the same color as her skin or similar. They colored her hair didn't they? And there is no mistake as to the skin color of the males. So why would you assume that they neglected to show the female's skin color?
Do we have other exmaples were Egyptian women are painted light of a similar complexion??
Yes we do.
Do you still want to argue?
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Altakruri
You must learn to use the quote feature so as toidentify replies from initial comments if you want a continuing dialogue. As you can see below, it's impossible to tell who wrote what.
I always put the other person's comments in bold. Then I reply right underneath. See? It's a habit I picked up from my days on IMDB.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The reference is not mine it is Evergreen's. I just xferred his post because it seemed to fit here. You can click the links to see his original thread.
Why not just borrow the book via interlibrary loan?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Thanks, I've found the book, just not a citation for altakuri's reference. I assume that if I want to see the full context I'd have to buy the book then. I just never heard about this and thought it to be interesting.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is not IMDB and your method makes for confusion in an ongoing dialogue because the contributors become blurred.
Please use the quote function to mark up initial comments from replies if you'd like to dialogue with me, otherwise I cannot continue any discussion.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Altakruri
You must learn to use the quote feature so as toidentify replies from initial comments if you want a continuing dialogue. As you can see below, it's impossible to tell who wrote what.
I always put the other person's comments in bold. Then I reply right underneath. See? It's a habit I picked up from my days on IMDB.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
No other excuse besides absentmindedness. You just reminded me that this is a useful option, lol.
Thanks, btw.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The reference is not mine it is Evergreen's. I just xferred his post because it seemed to fit here. You can click the links to see his original thread.
Why not just borrow the book via interlibrary loan?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] Thanks, I've found the book, just not a citation for altakuri's reference. I assume that if I want to see the full context I'd have to buy the book then. I just never heard about this and thought it to be interesting.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Mike11,
So then, in your delusional mind, what ever happened to those ancient people who were the same color as their clothing?
(P.S. we know that they are wearing clothing because we can see the hem of the women's dresses.)
So her clothing happens to be the same color as her skin or similar. They colored her hair didn't they? And there is no mistake as to the skin color of the males. So why would you assume that they neglected to show the female's skin color?
Do we have other exmaples were Egyptian women are painted light of a similar complexion??
Yes we do.
Do you still want to argue?
Argue? Is that what you think we are doing? No sonny, I am asking you questions, and your delusional mind is giving answers, that as I expected, would demonstrate not only your warped sense of reality, but that of ALL Whites.
Lets play some more.
Here is a picture of the top of a chest depicting Tut and Ankhesenpaaten.
Here is a picture of Tut and Ankhesenpaaten from his golden throne.
So were Tut and Ankhesenpaaten beige colored, or were they reddish brown colored?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Here is a picture of Tut and Ankhesenpaaten from his golden throne.
So were Tut and Ankhesenpaaten beige colored, or were they reddish brown colored? [/QB]
yes, as you ask: were they more this reddish brown color?:
or this beige color?:
_____^^^were they both this color
____or both this color? ^^^^
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Allow me...the reasoning is that if Berbers who have always lived in the same area have the same h types as fairly recently arrived Moriscos, then this would suggest they received these clades from a period which predates the Moors in Spain. And I see you didn't bother to coment on Ottoni's study.
Allow me to dumb down to you what I was telling you in that post: The descendants of the expelled Andalusian "Moors" would be expected to carry Iberian H clades as well, because they were once living in Iberia. Understand? As for Maghrebi folks in the "cosmopolitan" areas, it shouldn't shock anyone that they too would show some ancestry from Iberia, primarily because of the genetic imprint from European female slaves from Iberia and surrounding European areas. So, saying that samples from the cosmopolitan areas and descendants of expelled Andulasian carry similar H clades is next to saying nothing about the entry circumstance of the H clades.
I left the Ottoni et al. deal out, because its insinuations about U6 and M1 had already been addressed. The bit about H1 clades had already been covered in the second extract, wherein the authors admit that they couldn't tell the entry, and saw no sign of local expansions, as to which if you knew anything about genetics 101, you'd figure out to mean that the Maghrebi and Iberian examples had little, if any, differentiation. This in turn means that the intrusion of these clades were fairly recent. FYI, Ottoni et al. in fact cited a number of references, which all came to the conclusion that the European H clade components in the Maghreb were very likely historic. I noticed that you didn't address my replies on the molecular particulars of the H clades, in response to your cited studies. What's the deal?
quote: The conclusion reads, "Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula)'.
I already told you that I don't just blindly copy & paste words of authors without actually having a clue about what's going on, like you do. I actually examine what they are reporting about the molecular aspects of their samples. Address my replies about the molecular aspects of your citation, if you dare [below].
Generally, "no local expansions" implies that the population remained a relatively small effective size, such that cladistic diversity had remained fairly limited. I don't simply parrot, copy & paste what researchers say; I actually examine the molecular patterns that they are reporting. A number things, as I noted earlier, have led me to believe that much of the European mtDNA sub-clades in the Maghreb are of a relatively recent intrusion:
1)No signs of local expansion + not being able to effectively time the introduction date of European H clades in the Maghreb --> meaning, the internal diversity of Maghrebi sub-clades is fairly low + suggests little, if any, differences from examples in the Iberian peninsula.
2)Younger ages + lower diversity of Maghrebi hg H sub-clades than the Iberian examples --> meaning, the Maghrebi H sub-clades derive from a relatively shallow branch of the Iberian H clades, i.e. late expansion event. This info alone doesn't really specify to us the geographic origin of the expansion, but just that the Maghrebi examples are part of said expansion.
3)Asymmetry between European male contribution and European female contribution in the Maghrebi gene pool --> meaning, the European contribution is lopsidedly female. Male contribution is fairly rare to absent. This is not suggestive of a voluntary integration of an exogenous inbreeding population into the local (African) Maghrebi gene pool.
4)Slavery is documented. Females were apparently the more favored 'human commodity', because the male-driven market for "exotic" females in the Arab-speaking world was strong. Unlike the 'west', the Maghreb didn't develop an industrial or capital based economy from slave labor, and as such, the use of male physical labor would have been more modest than that applied in the "west". Furthermore, the Maghrebi folks could have more readily obtained that "commodity" from the Sudanic region, since there was already a thriving slave trade in that region. In this respect, European males would not be economically appealing, save for demand for ransoms.
5)Documented expulsions of "Moors"/Maghebi communities from the Iberian peninsula. These expulsions coupled with slavery could help explain the pattern of European genetic intrusion into contemporary Maghrebi gene pool.
As for the "sub-Saharan" L types, here's the deal: There are divergent Maghrebi versions of major clades belonging to these types. This is indication that their presence in the Maghreb has been fairly substantial, enough to allow for clear distinctions between Maghrebi sub-clades and Sub-Saharan versions. Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:
I have already cited various sources.
Lie. You abstained from replying to the requested specifics. You simply said that you won't meticulously look it up, as requests for your substantiation required. This is evidence that your opining about how black Riffians came to be, is just an emotional-driven fairy tale.
quote: By contrast your assertion about Black Riffians is backed by only one source
Lie #2. It's backed by *every* source I referenced in regards to the Maghrebi slave trade. This is stacked against your fact-free & self-produced oral legends about black Riffians. No contest here.
quote: , an Afrocentric website and it is the only place on the internet to claim drawings of Black riffians, let alone to mention the existence of Black Riffians. Is that not peculiar? And so you delude yourself into thinking that you have established sometjing when you have established nothing at all.
Firstly, these images had been cited many times before on this forum from different sources. Djehuti's source is visibly different from mine. Secondly, you greeted the images with some skimpy insinuation that they're the work of some black artist, in order to dismiss them--as you now are--as an "Afrocentric" conspiracy. That embarrassingly fell flat, when you decided to google for once, rather than relying on your usual personal oral legends, and realized that the drawings actually came from 19th century European sources. How did you learn that your initial agony about the images was a fraud, if you had not looked up info about the same drawings from other sources? Confess, you are a cult-crippled charlatan.
quote:
You are being disingenious as ususal and yet what other option do you have except to admit that your are wrong? I have already conceded that Riffians were cinverted to Islam. But that doesn't make them fully arabized.
LOL, your obvious flip flops have gotten you delirious to the point that you hear voices in your head about people admitting wrong-doing.
quote:
Obviously I can not rule out the possiblity of a slave market in the Rif,
You can't because fact trumps you. Records attest to Riffian role in slave piracy.
quote:Also we have an number of eye witness accounts of escapees who made it back to Europe.
Then what are you procrastinating for? Hit me with the stats and primary records that were demanded of you numerous posts ago.
quote:
Then I could mention the Kabyle another Berber group who live in the foot hills of the Atlas Mountains, who also have some of the lightest phenotyes in North Africa, their mtdna averaging near 90% Eurasian! Coincidence? Btw your Rastafarian website which mentioned Black Riffians says that the Kabyles are Blacks as well.
How can your unconfirmed figure be a coincidence, when slavery and historic Moorish expulsions can account for it?
quote:
More suppositions
That are supported by DNA patterns, and historic records of slavery. Beats the ungrounded suppositions you come up with.
quote:
And yet many of the experts on the issue conclude otherwise
Whoa, your own sources point out these molecular patterns. I had a hunch that you posted stuff you've barely read or understood. This is vindication.
quote: Lopsided is good term. No where will you find such a an imbalance which favors foreign females over native ones, except where an invasion has occured. In any event even if we were to consider your idea, we know that the majority of slaves DID go to cities. So that is where your extravagant scenario would make the most difference. And yet it is in these remote less arabized Berber populations were we find the lightest phenotypes. Coupled with this, we have the Guanche in the canary Island who have clear genetic, cultural and linguitsic affinities with Berbers and who were also reported to fiar skin and hair Then of course there are the ancient Libyans. Clearly the evidence favors my argument not yours. You'd be the bigger man to just come out and admit it.
Not a single thing in that long-winded rambling explains the asymmetry of European contribution in the the Maghrebi gene pool, i.e. outside of historic slavery & Moorish explusions as the apparent & logical reason; it's just otherwise replete with ungrounded gratuitous & hapless denials.
Your "Guanche & Maghrebi have the same gene pool" is a fairy tale, just as your ambiguous "Guanch-Berber" phenotype. Guanch language is not Tamazight--so, that's another fairy tale. This brings us to the dead horse you are excessively consumed by: "light skin"! "light skin" isn't the solution to the genetic asymmetry, lack of differentiation b/n Maghrebi & Iberian clades, lack of signs of local expansion, etc.
quote:
Oh please! A red herring. There is some African mixture sure, mostly around the Caribbean. But by and large the mix is indigenous and European. And.. "east (central) Asian"..eh???
Let's test your toothless whining. Produce a comprehensive DNA report of Latin America that doesn't show a complex mix of sub-Saharan, European and central/east Asian heritage. With regards to your bizarre confusion, east in "east (central) Asian" simply means east Asia; it is in the eastern confines of Asia. Likewise, central Asia is in the central part of Asia--not a mystery.
quote: Sorry I don't subscribe to some monolithic pan african bullshit.
Apparently you do subscribe to this "bullshit", despite all the pretentious posturing, as your sub-conscious reference to the immigrants as "Eurasians" makes clear. You are a hypocrite; you silently acknowledge the uncomfortable obvious truth.
quote:
No but apperantly a certain of set phenotypical tarits do. That you have some personal qualms with regard to the terminology is neither here nor there.
Your "Mediterranean traits be in sub-Saharan Africa" warrants no qualm. It is a fruitcake mentality, as made obvious by your inability to qualify it.
quote:
Presumbaly the proto Berbers were part of the Capsian culture in East North africa which began to spread westward where they asorbed the Eurasians. Who lived in the Maghreb prior to the Euraisna? At some point probably Blacks who moved further south across the Sahara. Bottom line, the Capsians from further East were not there all along, Afrticans or not.
Your magnificent prehistoric Eurasian community of females in the Maghreb is as real and as believable as Peter Pan. This is why they leave a mysteriously elusive DNA trail.
quote:
As we have said the continent is arbitrarily drawn.
Geology is obviously very foreign to you. Did you skip grade school?
quote:
And I cannot answer to the qustion of what happen to their females and children.
Because your trade is fairy tale telling. That, and simply offering ungrounded denials as a counterpunch.
quote:
My contention is that Eurasians had a strong presence in North Africa since prehistoric times and are not the result of RECENT slavery.
A contention that has no legs to stand on. Okay, why are you proud if it?
quote:
Dude if a Black has children with a white the kids will ususlaly look Black. White genes are recessive. Do you have any idea of the ratio of White females to Blacks needed to turn that around???
I do have an idea of where this post leads to you; that you spend much of your time telling stories, instead of gathering facts.
quote:
LOL, Riffians were unable to do the job, and so, they employed "sub-Saharan blacks
Hell the Moroccans employed Blacks for everything. You ever heard of the Black guard? Please read this if you havent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard Besides piracy is a dangerous line of work.
Since the joke is obviously on you, it's understandable you are not laughing with me at your expense. When will you realize that selling fairy tales is a bad business decision? People are bound to ask for validation that you don't have handy.
quote:
I don't know if that is true.
That's your trademark. You just assemble funny little theories out of things you haven't the foggiest idea about.
quote: But as I said they may have come through Iberia from further north. Remember the Guanche
Also I believe you mentioned that the Moorish ambassador to Queen Elizabeth was part Fulani. But my point in posting is image was to show yet another example of Moors being Middle Eastern looking. Whther or not his mother was Fulani doesn't change that, the man was still a pale face, relatively speaking.
You need to sip some very concentrated coffee to bring you out of that delirious wonderland. I have not made any post about a Moorish ambassador or his supposed Fulani mother. Likewise, the obsession with skin color in the length of this topic has been entirely your affair, which brings me to the ironic twist of your demented conspiracy theories about me being the biased party.
Your passionate dogma is to portray European genetic imprint as natural, and "sub-Sahran" presence in the Maghreb as unnatural, by saying the latter is due to slavery and coming up with ridiculous jokes about Maghrebi people hiring black folks to do their piracy for them and weight-lifting, when in fact much of the genetic evidence, and in fact historic documentation, points squarely to the other way around, i.e. much of the European contribution comes from two likely historic sources: expulsions of "Moors" and trade of European slave women.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyria crippled dick:
what slave trade was in that region? And even if there was one, why would that mean that European males would not have been used as slaves?
Argyria crippled dick, you've never heard of the trans-Saharan slave trade. What rock have you been hibernating under? I'd gone through why European male slaves would not have been economically appealing. Get your dry argyria ass paying attention, rather than a wasteful existence on a forum when you could be looking for a job.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
taht is not what the historical sources report. Male slaves were likely more numerous.
You can cook up internet rumors about mass European male slavery in the Maghreb, but you cannot specify stats and primary texts confirming European male slaves leaving the Maghreb en mass; nor can you explain why these guys left virtually no genetic imprint, like the females. Were these males infertile or castrated? LOL
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Explorer had brought up tectonic plates with another poster USING them to claim that they made the Sinai part Africa.
Silly, it is a geological fact that Sinai is a part of the African plate rather than the Arabian plate. I didn't invent the science of geology; you must have drunken too much beer, if you think this is something I came up with to "use" in explaining something, which in any case should be obvious to anyone with minimum schooling. If you have a tooth ache, you are not going run to a gynecologist; if you have an appendicitis, you aren't going to run to a barber; if you want to do a DNA test, you are not going to run to dentist or a carpenter. So, why do you suppose geological matters is left to the whim of any body who sees fit, rather than the domain of geologists? Well come to earth: geology is science, and it specializes in the geological matters of earth--tectonic plates/continents included. I'm not going to ask a barber to define the underlying facts of a continent. I'd seek the consultation of a geologist; that's what they do.
quote: I said that this was subjective. MEANING his DECISION to use the tectonic plates as opposed to anything else.
Will it make you happier if I marked Sinai with eggs, as "anything else", rather than confusing you with geological facts? LOL
quote: The current geological convention places the Sinai in Asia.
Total bullcrap. There is no such "geological" convention on this planet? Produce the geological underpinnings given for this [non-existent] convention. You are confusing earth with some other as yet named planet.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer aka Ma Dick wrote:
quote: you've never heard of the trans-Saharan slave trade.
I'll make it easy for you. So there's no need to run.
Name just 3 modern day nations where these "slaves" supposedly came from in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
Name just 3 ethnic groups who had members as slaves in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
argyria crippled dick, do you suppose there'll be time ripe enough for you to find a home of your own rather than living with your mother in a basement and stop clogging up the dwindling supply of food stamps that you freeloaders latch onto like lice to hair for a living? See my earlier advice: Leave the internet to grown-ups with jobs and old enough to screw your mama.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Ever thought about becoming a gangster rapper, or a battle rapper?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
If it ain't the uninformed kalonjigaboo who never follows through with responsibility. Ever thought about finishing what you've started, like answering this?...
How do you deem land is continuous? If said land is not "earth's crust", pray tell then what is "land" to you? A farm land, a property, what?
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Mike111
So were Tut and Ankhesenpaaten beige colored, or were they reddish brown colored?
I don't know but you can't be insinuating that Tut's wife represents all Egyptian females can you? And who said I was White? Lol.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer
Allow me to dumb down to you what I was telling you in that post: The descendants of the expelled Andalusian "Moors" would be expected to carry Iberian H clades as well, because they were once living in Iberia. Understand?
And you undertakers of the studies didn't know this? They compared them not just with the cosmopolitan popluation but with Berber populations which they believed to have been relatively "untouched". That is the only way it makes sense.
The bit about H1 clades had already been covered in the second extract, wherein the authors admit that they couldn't tell the entry, and saw no sign of local expansions, as to which if you knew anything about genetics 101, you'd figure out to mean that the Maghrebi and Iberian examples had little, if any, differentiation
Where did you dream this crap up? It says their coalescence time estimates place the arrival of H1 in North Africa at around 7000 B.C or so. And apparently it had remianed in North Africa long enough to form three local sub haplogroups,H1v, H1w and H1x. Here read it again. This time really try to focus!
"The Tuareg of the Fezzan region (Libya) are characterized by an extremely high frequency (61%) of haplogroup H1, a mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup that is common in all Western European populations. To define how and when H1 spread from Europe to North Africa up to the Central Sahara, in Fezzan, we investigated the complete mitochondrial genomes of eleven Libyan Tuareg belonging to H1. Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago, while phylogenetic analyses reveal three novel H1 branches, termed H1v, H1w and H1x, which appear to be specific for North African populations, but whose frequencies can be extremely different even in relatively close Tuareg villages. Overall, these findings support the scenario of an arrival of haplogroup H1 in North Africa from Iberia at the beginning of the Holocene, as a consequence of the improvement in climate conditions after the Younger Dryas cold snap, followed by in situ formation of local H1 sub-haplogroups. This process of autochthonous differentiation continues in the Libyan Tuareg who, probably due to isolation and recent founder events, are characterized by village-specific maternal mtDNA lineages." Ottoni et al.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Mike111
So were Tut and Ankhesenpaaten beige colored, or were they reddish brown colored?
I don't know but you can't be insinuating that Tut's wife represents all Egyptian females can you? And who said I was White? Lol.
White or a confused, conflicted Whitish Mulatto, like Lioness, those are the only choices.
I am following your logic, so answer the question.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: If it ain't the uninformed kalonjigaboo who never follows through with responsibility. Ever thought about finishing what you've started, like answering this?...
How do you deem land is continuous? If said land is not "earth's crust", pray tell then what is "land" to you? A farm land, a property, what?
To the Asscorridor, I mean the Explorer.
Have you ever bothered to read up the scientific debates that center on the properties of particles and whether or not they are discrete or continuous? Oops I forgot, your sorry ass thought continuous meant uninterrupted, so its obvious your ass aint read sh!t on the subject. Contrary to what you and your bay area dickrider have insinuated, continuous does not mean uninterrupted in the sense that I've used it. As for the earth crust and land, both are opposites of eachother in light of the aforementioned properties. Hence, my earlier attempts to beat it into your head that I didn't even mention the term ''the earth crust''. Your questions pertain to rather 101 type material, hence, why I opted to ignore your ass. Beatdowns only seem to make you think you've won anyway.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
And you undertakers of the studies didn't know this?
Apparently not, if they felt compelled using it as a reason to say they don't think the markers were historic.
quote: They compared them not just with the cosmopolitan popluation but with Berber populations which they believed to have been relatively "untouched". That is the only way it makes sense.
You don't make any sense. Maghrebi samples containing "European maternal markers" cannot be "untouched", whatever that's supposed to mean.
quote:
Where did you dream this crap up?
This crap comes from the study you cited, you forgetful dullard. You should first make sure you read up on your posts before imagining about other people dreaming.
quote: It says their coalescence time estimates place the arrival of H1 in North Africa at around 7000 B.C or so.
What does this say, dunderhead? You cited it...
"Although no signs of local expansion were detected, which would allow a clear dating of their introduction, the younger and less diverse Tunisian H1 and H3 lineages indicate Iberia as the radiating centre."
quote: And apparently it had remianed in North Africa long enough to form three local sub haplogroups,H1v, H1w and H1x. Here read it again. This time really try to focus!
This piece is from Ottoni et al., not the second extract. Ottoni et al. say the following about the *Libyan Tuareg* sub-clades:
The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward.
And puts this cautious disclaimer:
The issue of the North African specificity of H1v, H1w and H1x needs to be corroborated by additional survey of H1 variation in Western Europe, especially in Iberia, but for the moment none of the European complete mtDNA sequences belonging to H1 were found to belong to these clades.
The low diversity reinforces my earlier point. You need to stop sleep walking and typing on your keyboard.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: If it ain't the uninformed kalonjigaboo who never follows through with responsibility. Ever thought about finishing what you've started, like answering this?...
How do you deem land is continuous? If said land is not "earth's crust", pray tell then what is "land" to you? A farm land, a property, what?
^Kalonjoke has no choice but to "avoid his responsibilities" and scurry back into his rat hole once it becomes clear that he isn't making sense (not assuming that he ever does). Only someone who hasn't taken 3rd grade geology would call land "continuous". These ass holes will double talk you to death and distort the meaning of words to save face, but the geology doesn't lie. These clowns must still believe we're living on Pangea or something:
He's going to keep running in hopes that others don't expose him as an incompetent fraud as I did in a recent thread, hence why he can't answer simple, honest questions posed with good intention:
This is to the food stamp clogging slave, I mean kalonjigaboo:
quote:Originally posted by kalonjigaboo:
To the Asscorridor, I mean the Explorer.
Oops I forgot, your sorry ass thought continuous meant uninterrupted, so its obvious your ass aint read sh!t on the subject.
Thimblehead, "continuous" does mean "uninterrupted". Get off your ghetto rastafarian ass, look up a dictionary, and learn English.
quote: Contrary to what you and your bay area dickrider have insinuated, continuous does not mean uninterrupted in the sense that I've used it.
Why does your constipated ass only defensively emote that you don't mean by what you write when people hold your crusty ass to the fire? LOL
quote: As for the earth crust and land, both are opposites of eachother in light of the aforementioned properties.
So, jackass: "Land" is not earth's crust to you? What "speaking from your butt-hole" planet to do you come from, dumbstein? It's not earth, that's for sure.
quote: Hence, my earlier attempts to beat it into your head that I didn't even mention the term ''the earth crust''.
I don't know how you get to beat mentally-arrested gibber jabber into anyone's head. What master plan do you devise to spread dumbness like a disease? LOL
quote: Your questions pertain to rather 101 type material, hence, why I opted to ignore your ass. Beatdowns only seem to make you think you've won anyway.
You opted to not reply, because you know that your bony ass says the most dopey things anyone's ever seen. Do you even clean your butt, after you take a dump? I just don't see you bright enough to pull off something like that. Advice: Stop spreading your idiocy on the internet and feed you ashy ghetto ass some food. Let blood follow into that barren wasteland in your head, which is suffocated with that diaper that you wrap around your bonehead.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Your ass has been dealt with. My four year old cousin can reply in the manner in which you replied, thats a piece of cake. What's missing, is a refutation of the points I've offered, along side your petty, but otherwise amusing rant. Where is it?
What is the difference between continuous and discrete, when used in the manner I've used it in, Asscorridor?
quote:Originally posted by the asscorridor: "continuous" does mean "uninterrupted".
con·tin·u·ous (kn-tny-s) adj. 1. Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent. See Synonyms at continual. 2. Attached together in repeated units: a continuous form fed into a printer. 3. Mathematics Of or relating to a line or curve that extends without a break or irregularity
A definition of continuous, that does not include an entry on the manner in which scientist have, and still use it, in fields like quantum mechanics, among others. Your uninformed ass talked about ''there would be no vulcanoes if the earth crust was continuous''. And then your but buddy came along, and said ''We'd also have nothing called fault lines''.
All talk, but no refutation forthcoming. Only more self imposed embarrassment from two fags who can't (or won't) use their search engine to inform their uneducated selves about the meaning of discrete and continuous when used in conjunction. One of them (the fag from Bay Area) even posted a gif pic, thinking that, because he sees ''continental drift'', it must mean that land is discrete.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Look at this smelly ass porch ape (kalonjigaboo) citing stuff that only digs its sorry ghetto ass further into the pit.
This is for that melchior7 fellow:
As I pointed out earlier, Ottoni et al. referenced a number of sources that also maintain a more recent (historic) intrusion of European maternal gene pool into the Maghreb, although they (Ottoni et co.) are obviously trying to make the case otherwise...
Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37]. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Here is a picture of Tut and Ankhesenpaaten from his golden throne.
So were Tut and Ankhesenpaaten beige colored, or were they reddish brown colored?
yes, as you ask: were they more this reddish brown color?:
or this beige color?:
_____^^^were they both this color
____or both this color? ^^^^
[/QB]
NEITHER!
The above is a more accurate and less distorted light image of Tut's throne. As you can see he and his wife are not as "red" as you want.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the actual topic...
Would these Roman depictions of indigenous Tunisians count as Coastal North African types??
They were posted before by Takruri, but think they may be relevant to this thread.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Double talk: Deliberately unintelligible speech combining nonsense syllables and actual words.
Like "Indirect estimate", a term coined by Kalonjoke in another thread in addition to this embarrassing reply here, trying to distract people away from the issue of land MASSES by talking about "continuity" in the earth's crust.
Technically, nothing is continuous, all matter is mostly composed of space and a charge called the "strong force" in nuclear physics is what holds everything together in proximity, but who'd expect some babbling Banshee to know that? Folks, Kalonjoke is a thoroughbred idiot. It is clear why he is scared to enter alTakuri's thread because his position is NOT tenable.
What idiot doesn't know continents are defined by tectonic plates? Continental drift proves this, yet the idiot defers to talk about the earth's crust, which in and of its self isn't continuous on a macro or micro scale! It's clear he isn't informed on any subject worth a damn.
What a dope!
quote:All talk, but no refutation forthcoming. Only more self imposed embarrassment from two fags who can't (or won't) use their search engine to inform their uneducated selves about the meaning of discrete and continuous when used in conjunction. One of them (the fag from Bay Area) even posted a gif pic, thinking that, because he sees ''continental drift'', it must mean that land is discrete.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote: argyria crippled dick, do you suppose there'll be time ripe enough for you to find a home of your own rather than living with your mother in a basement and stop clogging up the dwindling supply of food stamps that you freeloaders latch onto like lice to hair for a living? See my earlier advice: Leave the internet to grown-ups with jobs and old enough to screw your mama.
Folks, what did I tell you. The boy makes things up. This is why he resorts to the amateur class clown rhetoric above when he is challenged by an individual with high intellect.
Once again "Explorer"............
Name just 3 modern day nations where these "slaves" supposedly came from in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
Name just 3 ethnic groups who had members as slaves in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
We're waiting................................
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer
I already told you that I don't just blindly copy & paste words of authors without actually having a clue about what's going on, like you do. I actually examine what they are reporting about the molecular aspects of their samples.
What good is your examining the studies if you are unable to make accurate assssments?
No signs of local expansion + not being able to effectively time the introduction date of European H clades in the Maghreb --> meaning, the internal diversity of Maghrebi sub-clades is fairly low + suggests little, if any, differences from examples in the Iberian peninsula.
I have already showed you in the post above that an estimation of the arrival date was established and that there were a number of local H1 subclades.
Male contribution is fairly rare to absent. This is not suggestive of a voluntary integration of an exogenous inbreeding population into the local (African) Maghrebi gene pool.
Did you already forget the invasion scenario?
Slavery is documented. Females were apparently the more favored 'human commodity', because the male-driven market for "exotic" females in the Arab-speaking world was strong. Unlike the 'west', the Maghreb didn't develop an industrial or capital based economy from slave labor
More crap which I countered in another post. Male slaves were very important among the Babrary pirates. Read my previous post to see why.
Documented expulsions of "Moors"/Maghebi communities from the Iberian peninsula. These expulsions coupled with slavery could help explain the pattern of European genetic intrusion into contemporary Maghrebi gene pool
And you accuse me of not knowing much about the history of North Africa. If you knew anything you would know that the Moorish refugees in North Africa by and large, live in their own towns along the Mediterreanen coast and did not so easily mix into the general population.
Lie. You abstained from replying to the requested specifics. You simply said that you won't meticulously look it up, as requests for your substantiation required
You are so full of it. You are going to use this as an excuse to overlook the information I actually posted. Dude admit it, you are just playing games.
It's backed by *every* source I referenced in regards to the Maghrebi slave trade.
And here you are purposely evading the question. Show me another source which talks about Black Riffians.
Secondly, you greeted the images with some skimpy insinuation that they're the work of some black artist, in order to dismiss them--as you now are--as an "Afrocentric" conspiracy.
It's clearly an Afrocentric site and one of the drawings of a captured pirate was from a newspaper dated 1859.
your obvious flip flops have gotten you delirious to the point that you hear voices in your head about people admitting wrong-doing.
So my concession that Riffians were converted to Islam is a flip flop, huh? Gotta love your system of reckoning.
Then what are you procrastinating for? Hit me with the stats and primary records that were demanded of you numerous posts ago
So you can ignore them like all the rest?
How can your unconfirmed figure be a coincidence, when slavery and historic Moorish expulsions can account for it?
Show me where expulsed Moors became Berber speaking Kabyles. Then you might actually have a leg to stand on. That's like Jewish immigrants coming to the states becoming Navajos.
Your "Guanche & Maghrebi have the same gene pool" is a fairy tale, just as your ambiguous "Guanch-Berber" phenotype. Guanch language is not Tamazight--so, that's another fairy tale.
"From the genetic perspective, strong evidence in support of a N African origin of the indigenous ancestors and their present-day persistence was only obtained when uniparental genetic markers were analyzed. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages, belonging to the U6 haplogroup, and Y-chromosome haplotypes of the E1b1b1b haplogroup, characterized by the M81 marker, both with a clear Berber origin, were detected in the Canary islanders at a significantly higher presence than in Iberians, their main colonizers". http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/181
"Both the study done by Maca-Meyer et al. (2003) on Tenerife aborigines and the study done by Fregel et al. (2009) on La Palma aborigines found the majority of mt-DNA haplogroups belonging to the Eurasian clades such as H/HV/U*/R. The study done by Maca-Meyer et al. (2003) on Tenerife Aborigines used a total sample of 71 aborigines and found that the frequency of the Cambridge Reference Sequence Cambridge Reference Sequence(CRS) which belongs to the European haplogroup H2a2 was 21.12% of the total sample. Meanwhile the same study Maca-Meyer et al.(2003)found out that frequencies of haplogroups H/HV/U*/R(-CRS) at 30.98% of the total; also mtDNA haplogroup V was observed at frequencies of 4.23% of the total sample." http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n2/full/5201075a.html
Produce a comprehensive DNA report of Latin America that doesn't show a complex mix of sub-Saharan, European and central/east Asian heritage. With regards to your bizarre confusion, east in "east (central) Asian" simply means east Asia; it is in the eastern confines of Asia. Likewise, central Asia is in the central part of Asia--not a mystery.
This is off topic. But I will take it that by East Asian you are refering to native American dna, howver in your previous post you listed them both separately. And you can't make blanket statements about Latin America. You will certianly not find much Sub-Saharan Dda in countries like Peru, Bolivia, or Argentina and Chile. You talk a good game but you clearly don't have a good handle on basic facts.
Apparently you do subscribe to this "bullshit", despite all the pretentious posturing, as your sub-conscious reference to the immigrants as "Eurasians" makes clear
You say this because you couldn't grasp what I meant by "pan african" bullshit. It entails a bit more then just tossing around appelations.
I have not made any post about a Moorish ambassador or his supposed Fulani mother.
In this instance you are correct. It was made by Brada Anansi. My bad.
when in fact much of the genetic evidence, and in fact historic documentation, points squarely to the other way around, i.e. much of the European contribution comes from two likely historic sources: expulsions of "Moors" and trade of European slave women.
Yet all your efforts to estabish that as fact have proven fruitless.
Silly, it is a geological fact that Sinai is a part of the African plate rather than the Arabian plate
Dude you are hopelessly clueless. You really need to try and hone your logic skills. I don't know why you keep bring this crap up when you SHOULD understand by now, that continents are not always based on tectonic plates. If such was the case, then the Arabian peninsula should be considered a separate continent as should India. And Europe as a continent would no basis. Sigh.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:This is for that melchior7 fellow:
LOL, It got too hot under your feet? Where is your refutation.. ?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It is hilarious, that the two butt buddies, keep trying to prove that they're right, by taking a homonym (a word with multiple meanings), and start claiming their victory by debating someone on one of the definitions of that word, which isn't even contested, nor utilized by the person they try to debate. They keep pushing their definition, in the hopes of being right, if they just try it enough times. LOL. Isn't that Einstein’s definition of insanity, ie keep trying do the same thing, and expecting a different result..? I mean, are you not supposed to determine what that person is saying, and debating that rather than slamming down a fictive position that you've erected in your own minds?
What these fools are doing, essentially amounts to a turd proving that a court is really a place where people are put to justice, using all sorts of arguments, to refute someone who is talking about a basketball court. I mean, how utterly idiotic can one be?
Especially the fag who posted the pic that depicts continental drift, who has been shown my definition of continuous before, in that thread created by alTakruri, yet the fag keeps posting the same ole bullshit, thinking he will have a point, if its just repeated enough times.
Beach, continuous whole:
Sand particle, discrete unit:
A given area of land is not an ''object'', but rather, its continuous, and it won't cease to be ''land'' when parts of it are removed, in contrary to something that is a discrete unit.
Now Explorer, tell me how vulcanoes negate that fact. Also tell me how exactly it can be scientifically justified, that the area of land that is arbitrarily cut up to constitute the Sinai pinunsula, can ever be called a seperate thing, of which it can be said that it belongs to another seperate thing, that is arbitrarily cut up to constituate the landmass to the lefthand side of the red sea (Africa), simply because the current state of affairs has it that the continental plate on which Sinai now rests, is also the continental plate on which Africa rests? And then, when that has seeped in, please tell us how it can be scientifically justified that tectonic plates should be used in the first place, for determining how to allocate Sinai, and why Africa should be seen as its own entity, and not a part of Eurasia.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Explorer,
Maghrebi samples containing "European maternal markers" cannot be "untouched", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Untouched as in Berbers not believed to have been affected by European slavery. Because if they didn't have a reliable CONTROL group to measure against the recent Iberian arrivals then that would make Cherni and folks dumber than you.
What does this say, dunderhead? You cited it...
"Although no signs of local expansion were detected, which would allow a clear dating of their introduction, the younger and less diverse Tunisian H1 and H3 lineages indicate Iberia as the radiating centre."
But Ottoni's study is more recent and claims to have established a complete sequencing of local hg H1 subclades.
This piece is from Ottoni et al., not the second extract. Ottoni et al. say the following about the *Libyan Tuareg* sub-clades:
The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward.
The Libyan Tuaregs are just one group in his study which you choose to emphasize as part of your laughable attempts at deception. The study goes on to say this,
"The H1 phylogeny based on complete North African sequences reveals a degree of branch diversification that is almost undetectable when using only control region data. Moreover, when compared to the H1 phylogeny built using complete sequences from Europe [17] , [19] , [38] , [39] , it appears that the novel branches H1v, H1w and H1x identified during the course of this study are all African-specific."
And puts this cautious disclaimer:
The issue of the North African specificity of H1v, H1w and H1x needs to be corroborated by additional survey of H1 variation in Western Europe, especially in Iberia, but for the moment none of the European complete mtDNA sequences belonging to H1 were found to belong to these clades.
And yet he is confident enough to to title his study thusly, "Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia".
And your little disclaimer is followed by this.
.."but for the moment none of the European complete mtDNA sequences belonging to H1 were found to belong to these clades. This scenario is further supported by the overall age of haplogroup H1 in North Africa. Using the evolution rates recently proposed by Soares et al . [32] and Loogväli et al . [33] , haplogroup H1 shows a coalescence time of approximately 8–9 ky ( Table 1 ), in agreement with the hypothesis of an early arrival and radiation of H1 in the African continent in the first half of the Holocene, as a consequence of the postglacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula. An arrival from Iberia explains the extent of H1 variation observed in North African populations"
Thus you cherry pick parts that you think will confuse readers into believing you actually have a case. You are a fraud!
The low diversity reinforces my earlier point. You need to stop sleep walking and typing on your keyboard.
Too bad for you, many of your opponents on here are more AWAKE and perceptive than you had hoped. You made the gamble and YOU LOSE!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Would these Roman depictions of indigenous Tunisians count as Coastal North African types??
They were posted before by Takruri, but think they may be relevant to this thread.
Are they or are they not Coastal North Africans??
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Djehuti,
Here is more.
This is what I found.
"Through times many artists have been inspired by the theme of The Four Seasons, and as early as in the 2nd century A.D. the Romans occupying the Mediterranean parts of the African Continent left their traces in these beautiful mosaics, featuring the seasons. The below stamps from Algeria feature Roman mosaics from the now ruined city of Timgad, founded by the Roman emperor Tajan in AD 100, and named in honour of his sister, Colonia Marciana Trajana Thamugas." http://heindorffhus.motivsamler.dk/shoebox/frame-FourSeasons.htm
This seems to be saying they are Roman colonists. But they look more like North Africans to me.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
What good is your examining the studies if you are unable to make accurate assssments?
Specifics? It is easy to make emotional accusations; it's a greater feat materializing them.
quote: I have already showed you in the post above that an estimation of the arrival date was established and that there were a number of local H1 subclades.
I trumped you. I re-cited your post, and I'm going to do it again, since you are either blind as a bat, just plainly dumb or both:
"The first large-scale fine characterization of Tunisian H lineages clarifies that the post-Last glacial maximum expansion originating in Iberia not only led to the resettlement of Europe but also of North Africa. We found that 46% of 81 Tunisian H lineages subscreened for 1,580 bp in mtDNA coding region were affiliated with H1 and H3 subhaplogroups, which are known to have originated in Iberia. Although no signs of local expansion were detected, which would allow a clear dating of their introduction, the younger and less diverse Tunisian H1 and H3 lineages indicate Iberia as the radiating centre.
^Let's test your reading skills. What does the highlighted mean?
quote:
Did you already forget the invasion scenario?
It's bogus. There is not a strand of evidence to back up that claim other than your imagination.
Frankly, many of your cited studies, especially that by Ottoni et al., make the same mistake. They blindly make far-reaching theories out of uncertain dates they come up with from HVR mutation rate [mathematical] simulations developed by one or another research team, without taking into account the Maghrebi Y-DNA pool and the anomalous pattern of the European contribution [asymmetrically female]. They don't even bother asking about whatever happened to the supposed accompanying "post-LGM" males, and what circumstance they supposedly arrived under; and as such, they are predisposed to making comments like this:
Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37].
^Contradicting reports, and hence:
additional efforts in the full mtDNA analyses of nomad Northern African populations might resolve the debate concerning their origin and their mutual relationship. - Ottoni et al. 2010
quote:
More crap which I countered in another post.
Too bad you are too intellectually inept to refute or challenge a simple refutable thing like crap. You were unable to make good on simple requests for stats and primary texts with regards to your professed "eye witness" accounts on the supposed European male would-be escapees?
quote: Male slaves were very important among the Babrary pirates. Read my previous post to see why.
I care to read the long overdue confirmation requested above, not some internet rumor or chit chat from a Eurocentric source. You do know the difference between stats + primary sources and chit chat, don't you?
quote: And you accuse me of not knowing much about the history of North Africa.
I don't accuse. I just astutely describe you.
quote: If you knew anything you would know that the Moorish refugees in North Africa by and large, live in their own towns along the Mediterreanen coast and did not so easily mix into the general population.
That's a load of chickenshit, but an irrelevant one nonetheless, because the H clades these Moors should have carried is just as historically accounted for as the rest, with the latter being largely thanks to the slave trade.
quote:
You are so full of it. You are going to use this as an excuse to overlook the information I actually posted. Dude admit it, you are just playing games.
Let's find out, knucklehead; where's the answer to this in the "information you posted"?...
Give me the comprehensive *list of all* Maghrebi territories 1)implicated in and affected by the historic slave piracy, and 2)those NOT affected by it. Then 3)give me a detailed list of primary texts from the era that corroborate your list of the affected and unaffected Maghrebi territories, as well as the 4) stats that back up these records.
I'm not going to duped by some internet rumor that you want to play political games with, instead of having the guts to face facts.
quote:
And here you are purposely evading the question. Show me another source which talks about Black Riffians.
You are a lazy bum. Scroll your eyes back to the previous pages with the sources + links, instead of crying your eyes out about people evading your dopey questions.
quote:
It's clearly an Afrocentric site and one of the drawings of a captured pirate was from a newspaper dated 1859.
Your sources are clearly posted on a Eurocentric cite and not even close to being credible, except for the acknowledgment that the Maghrebi folks did in fact sell Europeans.
I dare you to prove to us that the "drawings" are illegitimate on the said site, that you cowardly call "Afrocentric" just to willfully turn a blind eye to an unwelcoming truth, and why!
You are like a balloon, full of hot air, ready to pop at any moments notice...under pressure to validate your kooky theories.
quote: So my concession that Riffians were converted to Islam is a flip flop, huh? Gotta love your system of reckoning.
There's a difference between conceding and being busted. We should call you weiner jr. Even upon bursting your bubble, you still proceeded to latch fruitlessly onto the pointless hoopla about "cultural conservatism".
quote:
So you can ignore them like all the rest?
LOL, cop-out.
quote:
Show me where expulsed Moors became Berber speaking Kabyles.
You'd have to give me a darn good reason I should have to do that. Where did I mention this about the Kabyles? Or is this just another lie waiting to blow up in your fat face?
Do this for me, however: Do these Kabyle folks carry European mtDNA. Do they carry European male contribution that is symmetrical to the female counterpart?
quote: Then you might actually have a leg to stand on.
Oh but I do. In fact, I have more than enough to lend you one, since you badly need a leg. LOL
quote:
"From the genetic perspective, strong evidence in support of a N African origin of the indigenous ancestors and their present-day persistence was only obtained when uniparental genetic markers were analyzed. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages, belonging to the U6 haplogroup, and Y-chromosome haplotypes of the E1b1b1b haplogroup, characterized by the M81 marker, both with a clear Berber origin, were detected in the Canary islanders at a significantly higher presence than in Iberians, their main colonizers". http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/181
dumbass, you said that the Guanche had the same gene pool as the Maghrebi folks. Saying that they carry U6 means jack, or E-M81 for that matter. Show that they have the same patterns as the Maghrebi, with dominant African male gene pool, followed by Arab brought J clades, and Iberian female genetic contribution, along with local L type clades.
Also, give me the details of this Tamazight language that the Guanche supposedly speak.
What about the "Guanche-Maghrebi" cranial data that you keep nattering about. Where's the evidence I pressed you on?
quote:
This is off topic. But I will take it that by East Asian you are refering to native American dna, howver in your previous post you listed them both separately.
dufus, where does "native American DNA" come from, if not from east and central Asia?
quote: And you can't make blanket statements about Latin America. You will certianly not find much Sub-Saharan Dda in countries like Peru, Bolivia, or Argentina and Chile. You talk a good game but you clearly don't have a good handle on basic facts.
I'm waiting for the specifics you are procrastinating on. Your distractions will not give you a hiding place, I can assure you that.
quote:
You say this because you couldn't grasp what I meant by "pan african" bullshit. It entails a bit more then just tossing around appelations.
I'll have to take it that you had no clue what "Eurasian" meant, because it is apparently not synonymous with 'African'.
quote: In this instance you are correct. It was made by Brada Anansi. My bad.
Hey, why stop there? Fess up to all the rest of your dumbass posts. You haven't yet forwarded a single smart or well-thought out post. Surprise me, with a smart post.
quote: Yet all your efforts to estabish that as fact have proven fruitless.
Fruitless; why? Because you are too dense to understand them and know when to give up your "fruitless" propaganda campaign? My fart has more brain power than you do. LOL
quote:
Dude you are hopelessly clueless.
Let's determine how long you'll hang onto this willful stupidity, with these back-to-the-basics:
1)Do you know how to define geology?
2)Show me a single *geological* source that shows Sinai as part of Asia rather than Africa.
In fact, I'll go even further and simplify it:
Where is Sinai "politically" located? Don't let primary school kids know the answer to this better than you do.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Djehuti,
Here is more.
This is what I found.
"Through times many artists have been inspired by the theme of The Four Seasons, and as early as in the 2nd century A.D. the Romans occupying the Mediterranean parts of the African Continent left their traces in these beautiful mosaics, featuring the seasons. The below stamps from Algeria feature Roman mosaics from the now ruined city of Timgad, founded by the Roman emperor Tajan in AD 100, and named in honour of his sister, Colonia Marciana Trajana Thamugas." http://heindorffhus.motivsamler.dk/shoebox/frame-FourSeasons.htm
This seems to be saying they are Roman colonists. But they look more like North Africans to me.
They WERE Roman colonists: If you had been paying attention, you would know that later Greek and Roman civilizations were Mulatto societies.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Explorer, are you sure that the corresponding references to citations [26], [27], [37] are contradicting reports?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
Untouched as in Berbers not believed to have been affected by European slavery. Because if they didn't have a reliable CONTROL group to measure against the recent Iberian arrivals then that would make Cherni and folks dumber than you.
dummy, they cannot be assumed to be "untouched" by European slavery, when they are carrying European mtDNA. What part of that concept does your feeble mind not compute?
quote:
But Ottoni's study is more recent and claims to have established a complete sequencing of local hg H1 subclades.
You cited the damn study, and it was used against you. Now you cry me a river about the Ottoni study "being more recent".
quote:
The Libyan Tuaregs are just one group in his study which you choose to emphasize as part of your laughable attempts at deception. The study goes on to say this,
My "laughable attempts" are actually lethal weapons that dummies like you take for a joke, only to see smoke crawl up your ass. It's like laughing your ass off, while I torpedo a bomb right up your rear end. In all seriousness though, this is your own source jackass, and it centers on Libyan Tuaregs. Disagree? Then prove otherwise.
quote:
And yet he is confident enough to to title his study thusly, "Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia".
Who gives your ass about the title, nimrod. The nucleotide specifics is all that is relevant. Unlike you, I don't worship journals as words from the almighty; I critically analyze them.
quote: And your little disclaimer is followed by this.
dufus, that is the Ottoni et al.'s "little disclaimer". At this reading skill level, you cannot be fit enough to debate kindergarteners, let alone grown ups on the internet.
quote:
Thus you cherry pick parts that you think will confuse readers into believing you actually have a case. You are a fraud!
You call it cherry picking; I call it exposing the uncertainty of their speculations. They cite several other research teams, both recent and new, proposing the counter conclusion of their speculation.
The guys tell it to your stupid face that the even the Libyan Tuaregs have a "sharply" low diverse H clade gene pool, and yet you seem not phased by it. That's because you are too genetically illiterate to know the implications.
quote:
Too bad for you, many of your opponents on here are more AWAKE and perceptive than you had hoped. You made the gamble and YOU LOSE!
Well, I will submit to you, that you are at liberty to escape the real world to "relieve stress". Take however long you deem necessary till the cows come home. Just let me know when you are ready and fit, at minimum, to confront me head-on on facts and real life.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Explorer, are you sure that the corresponding references to citations [26], [27], [37] are contradicting reports?
Nevermind, I think I now see what you are getting at. In that, then I stand corrected. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Once again "Explorer"............
Name just 3 modern day nations where these "slaves" supposedly came from in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
Name just 3 ethnic groups who had members as slaves in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
We're waiting................................
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
I trumped you. I re-cited your post, and I'm going to do it again, since you are either blind as a bat, just plainly dumb or both
The trumping card was Ottoni's more recent study. I see you are becoming more confused with every post.
They don't even bother asking about whatever happened to the supposed accompanying "post-LGM" males, and what circumstance they supposedly arrived under
Because they have enough deductive reasoning ability to envision the scenario I keep mentioning.
You were unable to make good on simple requests for stats and primary texts with regards to your professed "eye witness" accounts on the supposed European male would-be escapees?
Do you think then that there are no accounts of White male slave escapees on the internet?
I care to read the long overdue confirmation requested above, not some internet rumor or chit chat from a Eurocentric source
"Internet rumor or chit chat"??? Lol! You're too funny.
because the H clades these Moors should have carried is just as historically accounted for as the rest, with the latter being largely thanks to the slave trade.
You keep saying this as gospel when we both know you have not established this, and the more recent studies disagree.
list of all* Maghrebi territories 1)implicated in and affected by the historic slave piracy, and 2)those NOT affected by it. Then 3)give me a detailed list of primary texts from the era that corroborate your list of the affected and unaffected Maghrebi territories, as well as the 4) stats that back up these records
I don't need to. What I have already posted is more than sufficient. That you continue to bang your head on the wall in denial, is not my problem.
Scroll your eyes back to the previous pages with the sources + links, instead of crying your eyes out about people evading your dopey questions.
There is just one source which mentions Black Riffians and that is www.africaresource.com. Other sites my have a copy of the newspaper image but they do not discuss Black Riffians. If you contest this, then prove me wrong. Now is your chance to score some REAL points. Lol.
You'd have to give me a darn good reason I should have to do that. Where did I mention this about the Kabyles?
The Kabyle are a large Berber population with high frequecies of hg H1, and you implied that the influx of Moorish refugees was partly repsonsible for Hg H1 in North Africa.
you said that the Guanche had the same gene pool as the Maghrebi folks. Saying that they carry U6 means jack, or E-M81 for that matter. Really, when U6 is predominately North African and E-M81 is the signature Berber marker? Lol. Damn dude. You keep slipping up with just about every retort.
Show that they have the same patterns as the Maghrebi, with dominant African male gene pool, followed by Arab brought J clades, and Iberian female genetic contribution, along with local L type clades. Remeber I said that the Canary Islanders were isolated for centuries which is why I brought them up to begin with. Why should they carry J clades when we know that hg J is largely the result of the Arab invasion in more recent times? A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you? Yet again. Lol.
There's a difference between conceding and being busted
If I had denied that the Berbers converted to Islam and you proved me wrong, that would be significant. But here your are deluding yourself into believing you have acheived some kind of victory, when in fact, you have done nothing of sort. And this only make you look more the fool, I'm afraid.
I'm waiting for the specifics you are procrastinating on
Now you want me to give a breakdown on the gentics of Latin America? Lol.
Is there any educated person excluding Explorer(naturally), who thinks that there is a significant sub saharan genetic component in countries like Peru, Bolivia, or Chile? Lol.
I'll have to take it that you had no clue what "Eurasian" meant, because it is apparently not synonymous with 'African'
It's obviously beyond your intellectual reach. Just leave it be. It's not important anyway.
Hey, why stop there? Fess up to all the rest of your dumbass posts. You haven't yet forwarded a single smart or well-thought out post. Surprise me, with a smart post.
I'm afraid there is much doubt as to whether you have the mental wherewithal to recognize a well-thought-out post, let alone any semblance of higher reasoning. That would be like asking Stevie Wonder to map out constellations in the night sky.
Do you know how to define geology?
Show me a single *geological* source that shows Sinai as part of Asia rather than Africa.
Geology is basically the study of Earth. Continents are largely abitrary divisions given to the Earth's land mass..
In fact, I'll go even further and simplify it: Where is Sinai "politically" located? Don't let primary school kids know the answer to this better than you do.
You didn't simplify, you took the whole thing out of context. I believe that you were trying to harp on the science geology to imply some empirical basis for continents. And now you switch to politics to justify your claim which is egregiously subjective. Damn you really fcked that one up. Anyway...
dummy, they cannot be assumed to be "untouched" by European slavery, when they are carrying European mtDNA.
Obviously they must have some reason to believe that they can use the Berbers as a control. If they thought European mtdna automatically implied European slavery, there would be no sense in doing the study to begin with.
My fart has more brain power than you do
Your fart likely has all the brain power you can muster. I'll concede you that.
It's like laughing your ass off, while I torpedo a bomb right up your rear end. In all seriousness though, this is your own source jackass, and it centers on Libyan Tuaregs. Disagree? Then prove otherwise.
It's like me laughing my ass off at the one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Gravity is a bitch, ain't it? Lol!
And your quote about the Libyans Tuaregs concerned initial findings in the study which were later resolved in favor of a conclusion that Eurasian mtdna is likely prehistoric. Is that not true?
Unlike you, I don't worship journals as words from the almighty; I critically analyze them.
And quite poorly, I might add.
Just let me know when you are ready and fit, at minimum, to confront me head-on on facts and real life.
You clearly demonstrate that you don't value facts at all. You are here to push you agenda and you will contort, lie, and twist things around to make your position seem as plausible as possible. The problem is that it is all so painfully obvious.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The most interesting part of that study is this:
Ottoni et al.
The French colonization, in the early 20th century, might have also determined the admixture of different Tuareg groups.
(Which is actual recorded history versus a hypothesis, as they mention themselves.)
Indeed, when the Tuareg were confined to restricted areas, there was a decline in their socio-political system and a forced mixture of previously separated tribal groups [46].
Nevertheless, the hypothesis that the three H1 clusters detected here in the Tuareg were all present in the same founder group cannot be totally ruled out, particularly since we are dealing with a small and isolated human group in which genetic drift might have significantly affected the make-up of the mitochondrial pool.
Unfortunately, the recorded history of the Saqaliba and the Mamluk at Libya, is not being mentioned either.
Also recorded history tells that the Roman Carthage invaded that part and predominantly in that part of North Africa.
Frigi et al.
Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a "foundational" biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra- Saharan Africa.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
The so-called "Iberomaurusians" are not a "type", for starters. I have not come across any convincing evidence, genetic or archeological, that suggests the EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene Maghrebi specimens are Iberians. Saying that these earlier specimens died off, does not offer excuse to write them off as Europeans. These "Iberomaurusian" -- which by all accounts is a dubious name to begin with -- specimens were preceded by yet other specimens too, which in turn appear to have little cranio-morphometric connection with them, just as contemporary Tamazight specimens do vis-a-vis the so-called the "Iberomaurusians".
Maybe I'm missing something here, like I dunno, the duplicate of EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene Maghrebi specimens in Europe at the very same time they occur in north Africa, and the fact that no pre-LGM and/or LGM European specimens are implicated. One would think that any European arrival would coincide with the onset of the LGM, not after it. A European emigration cannot be attributed to the Neolithic package either, because that came to Europe at a much later time frame than the ages of so-called "Iberomaurusians" would allow. These glaring loose ends doesn't seem to phase some of the unalert minds out there, who simply digest any Eurocentric offered explanation that comes their way. Euro folk explanation is then taken for granted, because of this god-like complex bestowed upon them. But I digress, since I still await a convincing pile of evidential material to be presented before me, that proves beyond doubt that the early Holocene/EpiPaleolithic north African specimens are in fact European immigrants. To date, I've seen only Eurocentric-driven attempts to connect the diverse north African specimens--from the Maghreb to the Nile Valley--with discrete Upper Paleolithic specimens of Europe, whom were indiscriminately and erroneously referred to as "Cro-Magnon". It goes without saying, that none of those European samples are duplicitous of the EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene north African specimens--none! But who knows, maybe somebody here will surprise me to the contrary, for the first time.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
First of all, I don't know that the Eurasian population that these studies suggest crossed into Notrh Africa in prehistoric times, corresponds with the Iberomarusians. You yourself mentioned in a previous post that the Iberomarusians are now believed to have been a North African people, and their connection to any group or culture in Iberia was mistaken. But even so, if you allow the possibilty of absorption, as you put it, and I assuming this would involve mostly female Iberomarusians, then we might expect to find some of their mtdna present in North Africans today.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
I firmly believe so.
It is well known that Iberia was a place where enslaved women were taken, by Spaniards and Portugese. Women of Berber descent. Some sources even mention Chinese were taken there.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Credit to The Explorer as the idea became very plausible in my eyes after he broke it down.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
The so-called "Iberomaurusians" are not a "type", for starters. I have not come across any convincing evidence, genetic or archeological, that suggests the EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene Maghrebi specimens are Iberians. Saying that these earlier specimens died off, does not offer excuse to write them off as Europeans. These "Iberomaurusian" -- which by all accounts is a dubious name to begin with -- specimens were preceded by yet other specimens too, which in turn appear to have little cranio-morphometric connection with them, just as contemporary Tamazight specimens do vis-a-vis the so-called the "Iberomaurusians".
I expected a reaction, be it positive or negative, which is why I put the word "type" in quotations, but let me disassociate myself from that claim for a second and quote the source (since frankly, I have the same issue with "typology" that you do, but just wanted to make a point about the recentness of "Berbers" as they are today):
quote:The Ibero-Maurusian people belonged to the Mechtoid anthropological type. The Mechta-Afalou, or Mechtoid, are an extinct people of North Africa. Mechtoids inhabited northern Africa during the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic (Ibero-Maurusian archaeological culture).
quote:Maybe I'm missing something here, like I dunno, the duplicate of EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene Maghrebi specimens in Europe at the very same time they occur in north Africa, and the fact that no pre-LGM and/or LGM European specimens are implicated. One would think that any European arrival would coincide with the onset of the LGM, not after it. A European emigration cannot be attributed to the Neolithic package either, because that came to Europe at a much later time frame than the ages of so-called "Iberomaurusians" would allow. These glaring loose ends doesn't seem to phase some of the unalert minds out there, who simply digest any Eurocentric offered explanation that comes their way. Euro folk explanation is then taken for granted, because of this god-like complex bestowed upon them. But I digress, since I still await a convincing pile of evidential material to be presented before me, that proves beyond doubt that the early Holocene/EpiPaleolithic north African specimens are in fact European immigrants. To date, I've seen only Eurocentric-driven attempts to connect the diverse north African specimens--from the Maghreb to the Nile Valley--with discrete Upper Paleolithic specimens of Europe, whom were indiscriminately and erroneously referred to as "Cro-Magnon". It goes without saying, that none of those European samples are duplicitous of the EpiPaleolithic/early Holocene north African specimens--none! But who knows, maybe somebody here will surprise me to the contrary, for the first time.
I agree, even Frigi thinks the Iberomarusians ultimately came from the Nile Valley, it just seems evident that these populations must have interacted with ancient Europeans given the data from Kefi on the Taforalt population.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
First of all, I don't know that the Eurasian population that these studies suggest crossed into Notrh Africa in prehistoric times, corresponds with the Iberomarusians. You yourself mentioned in a previous post that the Iberomarusians are now believed to have been a North African people, and their connection to any group or culture in Iberia was mistaken. But even so, if you allow the possibilty of absorption, as you put it, and I assuming this would involve mostly female Iberomarusians, then we might expect to find some of their mtdna present in North Africans today.
^I think my comment was misunderstood as I obviously don't believe, as you point out, that the Iberomarusians came from Europe (the culture originated in Africa, thus, "Ibero" is a misnomer). My point was to imply that these lineages were likely introduced but lost when the associated cultures and people ceased to exist. There's no demonstrable continuity from that period to today (hence, a RE-introduction of said lineages to North Africa at a later [more recent] date).
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: I trumped you. I re-cited your post, and I'm going to do it again, since you are either blind as a bat, just plainly dumb or both
The trumping card was Ottoni's more recent study.
Disowning posts, when they blow up in our face, are we?
quote: I see you are becoming more confused with every post.
This would be concern, if only I mistook you for a level-headed person.
quote:
Because they have enough deductive reasoning ability to envision the scenario I keep mentioning.
They are like you; crippled by Eurocentric dogma. Objectivity does not thrive in that kind of an environment.
quote:
Do you think then that there are no accounts of White male slave escapees on the internet?
Absolutely. You'd be bragging about it just about right now, if you had even an ounce of evidence. I mindful of how narcissistic of a character you are.
quote: "Internet rumor or chit chat"??? Lol! You're too funny.
Thanks for compliment, but I still don't see your elusive confirmation documents.
quote:.
You keep saying this as gospel when we both know you have not established this, and the more recent studies disagree.
Well, if you choose to ignore the reality of European slavery in the Maghreb, that's certainly on you, but I'd like to know what "recent studies" disagree with this.
quote:
list of all* Maghrebi territories 1)implicated in and affected by the historic slave piracy, and 2)those NOT affected by it. Then 3)give me a detailed list of primary texts from the era that corroborate your list of the affected and unaffected Maghrebi territories, as well as the 4) stats that back up these records
I don't need to.
You do.
quote:
There is just one source
You lie. This lie is enough to prove that you are chronic liar not worthy of an iota of any sane person's trust.
quote:
The Kabyle are a large Berber population with high frequecies of hg H1, and you implied that the influx of Moorish refugees was partly repsonsible for Hg H1 in North Africa.
Your Alzheimer's is playing tricks on you. I'd also said slavery is responsible.
quote:
Really, when U6 is predominately North African and E-M81 is the signature Berber marker? Lol. Damn dude. You keep slipping up with just about every retort.
These markers are found in groups outside Tamazigh-speakers. It doesn't morph them into Tamazight speakers, nor does the presence of one or two shared markers make them genetic duplicates of Maghrebi populations. You lied about the strength of the Guanche-Maghrebi connection, and it nipped you in the ass.
quote: Remeber I said that the Canary Islanders were isolated for centuries which is why I brought them up to begin with. Why should they carry J clades when we know that hg J is largely the result of the Arab invasion in more recent times? A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you? Yet again. Lol.
Regardless of how slow I am, I'm still mentally light years ahead of you. The absence of hg J shouldn't handicap you from showing a duplicitous pattern b/n Maghrebi and Guanche populations. I suppose you are stumped with the idea that the Phoenicians were hg J-free. In any event, tell me when hg J first arrived in the Maghrebi gene pool, and details on corroborating evidence.
quote:
If I had denied that the Berbers converted to Islam and you proved me wrong, that would be significant.
You were busted, and never recovered. Get over it.
quote:
Now you want me to give a breakdown on the gentics of Latin America? Lol.
I wanted it decades ago. The simple request has caught you dumb-founded.
quote:
Is there any educated person excluding Explorer(naturally), who thinks that there is a significant sub saharan genetic component in countries like Peru, Bolivia, or Chile? Lol.
Is there any educated person, sans yourself, who thinks you don't live in a padded cell somewhere?
quote:
It's obviously beyond your intellectual reach. Just leave it be. It's not important anyway.
No, can do. You are about to be outed on using terms (like "Eurasian" vs. "African") to big for your brain processing.
quote:
I'm afraid there is much doubt as to whether you have the mental wherewithal to recognize a well-thought-out post, let alone any semblance of higher reasoning.
Yet with this mental capacity, I've been able to keep you intellectually in a leash, like a rabid dog.
quote:
Geology is basically the study of Earth. Continents are largely abitrary divisions given to the Earth's land mass..
What school did you go to again, and the name of the teacher who paralyzed you or failed to check your handicap, this way?
quote:
You didn't simplify, you took the whole thing out of context.
You don't know the answer. Ok then.
quote:
Obviously they must have some reason to believe that they can use the Berbers as a control. If they thought European mtdna automatically implied European slavery, there would be no sense in doing the study to begin with.
Pee wee, just go sit on your dancing chair. You are unfit for any analysis of anything or anyone's mind.
quote:
Your fart likely has all the brain power you can muster. I'll concede you that.
Refreshing to see you concede that my ass air makes more brain waves than you'll make in a lifetime.
quote:
It's like me laughing my ass off at the one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Gravity is a bitch, ain't it? Lol!
Yep, I enjoy kicking your ass, one legged man, and making you my bitch.
quote:
And your quote about the Libyans Tuaregs concerned initial findings in the study which were later resolved in favor of a conclusion that Eurasian mtdna is likely prehistoric. Is that not true?
You could not defend your life with literacy. How did you confuse "sharply low diversity" with "prehistoric"?
quote:
You clearly demonstrate that you don't value facts at all. You are here to push you agenda and you will contort, lie, and twist things around to make your position seem as plausible as possible. The problem is that it is all so painfully obvious.
You can get some cues from Miss Cleo. Your psychic hotline scheme stinks worse than a skunk.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
I see. I had claimed that the Iberomarusians possibly "went back across the straights", implying a European origin. My mistake (I misspoke).
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It's curious that anyone would even attempt to associate ancient DNA found in Iberomarusian populations with Berber-speakers whose languages dispersed from NE Africa rather recently. The male contribution to the genome would also either suggest an extermination of ancient male descendants of the Iberomarusians, or more recent sex-biased gene-flow as pointed out. Frigi et al (2010) claims the populations associated with the Iberomarisuans died out (their phenotype/skeletal "type" disappeared from the archaeological record) along with the culture (they went back across the straights or simply got absorbed). This would support the idea that the same lineages were simply Re-introduced during the Iberian slave trade being that the slaves came from similar sources as this early population. ANY sort of contact is only convenient being that the iberian peninsula is so close.
First of all, I don't know that the Eurasian population that these studies suggest crossed into Notrh Africa in prehistoric times, corresponds with the Iberomarusians. You yourself mentioned in a previous post that the Iberomarusians are now believed to have been a North African people, and their connection to any group or culture in Iberia was mistaken. But even so, if you allow the possibilty of absorption, as you put it, and I assuming this would involve mostly female Iberomarusians, then we might expect to find some of their mtdna present in North Africans today.
^I think my comment was misunderstood as I obviously don't believe, as you point out, that the Iberomarusians came from Europe (the culture originated in Africa, thus, "Ibero" is a misnomer). My point was to imply that these lineages were likely introduced but lost when the associated cultures and people ceased to exist. There's no demonstrable continuity from that period to today (hence, a RE-introduction of said lineages to North Africa at a later [more recent] date).
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
I agree, even Frigi thinks the Iberomarusians ultimately came from the Nile Valley, it just seems evident that these populations must have interacted with ancient Europeans given the data from Kefi on the Taforalt population.
I'd put a link in the previous page, addressing Kefi et al. head on. That link is still there, if you care to go through. I simply don't have time to go into all details about Kefi et al. at the moment. I don't necessarily see the Maghrebi specimens as ultimately coming from the Nile Valley and I don't rule out the possibility that they'd evolved in the Maghreb region, given the long human presence there...long before the first modern human sets foot in the Levant!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Objectivity does not thrive in that kind of an environment.
So where is the objectivity that you're professing to be oh so endowed with? How does science objectively prove that in-between regions (eg the Sinai peninsula) can be seen as discrete entities that can be, Geologically speaking, more a part of one adjacent region than the other adjacent region? What branch of Geology evaluaties all connections that the Sinai has on all levels to the regions that surround it, in order to objectively determine to which adjacent region the Sinai peninsula belongs?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Oh wait, I thought you were covered up with cob webs, after you were made irrelevant a page ago. If you aren't for some reason, well then, we need to fix this.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Stop putting on the show face, trying to act witty, just answer the questions, will ya?
Its devastating enough for your own credibility that you avoided my previous post like the plaque, after trying so hard to reengage me.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is why we must correctly label it Mouillian and objectively remove the false nonexistant pseudo connection with Iberia/Europe from a strictly African (Halfan originating) industry.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I see. I had claimed that the Iberomarusians possibly "went back across the straights", implying a European origin. My mistake (I misspoke).
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Once again "Explorer"............
Name just 3 modern day nations where these "slaves" supposedly came from in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
Name just 3 ethnic groups who had members as slaves in this so called "trans-Saharan slave trade".
Folks, "The Explorer" is running scared like the rest of the race loons.
And the boy wants everyone to believe that he is a scholar. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
No wonder his blog averages only 2 visitors a month. : )
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Perhaps if you start acting like a human being, you might get a response. What does your mummy feed you: raw meat or what?
I imagine that you are one of those fairy tale 2 visitors that you speak of, since you know about it. I don't care if it gets "negative" infinity visitors. It's only there for those who care to avail themselves of it, and more importantly, as my personal archiving tool for stuff that I post here. You seem to get this delusional impression that I give a fock about what you or somebody else thinks of me. Even millions upon millions of money will not be enough for anyone to buy my respect; you will have to earn it.
Getting some home training in human relations will get you a long way to carrying yourself as a human being. But wait!...that's what focked you up in the first place, your "home training". LOL
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The Explorer wrote:
quote: Perhaps if you start acting like a human being, you might get a response. What does your mummy feed you: raw meat or what?
You mean like you do as in the below thread?
Folks, look at "The Explorer's" depravity in the thread below.
He sadistically hates blacks with as much passion as that of the most diabolical white supremacists. Yet as you have seen in other threads, he is quite docile and timid when he deals with the white racists.
Folks, this boy also posts as Ausarian, Troll Shredder, Supercar, Mystery Solver, and a host of other sockpuppets with names meant to elevate his pathetic self-esteem.
Explorer.........go back to playing with your dick. You've been exposed one too many times and your jig has been up for awhile now. You're only too stupid to realize it.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
It is obvious to anyone with a residue of brain action that you don't know quite what to do with yourself in the company of human beings. See earlier post. It is just not in your nature. You are after all, a wild bitchling conceived from some anally raped plantation pig. Instead of being a begging whore, you could be out there allowing your human handlers to groom you to adulthood into an obedient wild pet, just as your mother pig had done for itself.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And then they mixed with Eurasians and a new breed was born.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
